[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CAUSES OF DELAYS TO THE FAA'S NEXTGEN PROGRAM
=======================================================================
(113-30)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 17, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
81-939 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
------ 7
Subcommittee on Aviation
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin RICK LARSEN, Washington
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
SAM GRAVES, Missouri Columbia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JEFF DENHAM, California ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice Chair (Ex Officio)
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
TESTIMONY
Hon. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 4
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED
BY WITNESSES
Hon. Michael P. Huerta:
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Answers to questions from the following Representatives:
Hon. Frank A. LoBiondo, of New Jersey.................... 43
Hon. Richard M. Nolan, of Minnesota...................... 54
Hon. Calvin L. Scovel III, prepared statement.................... 61
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CAUSES OF DELAYS TO THE FAA'S NEXTGEN PROGRAM
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Frank A.
LoBiondo (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. LoBiondo. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order. I thank you all for being here.
One of the priorities of the subcommittee is to ensure that
the U.S. maintains a modern, safe, and efficient aviation
system now and into the future. Our current system simply
cannot meet future air traffic demands. Over the last decade
the FAA has been developing and more recently implementing a
program to meet these demands, generally known as NextGen.
Let me be clear, I completely support the NextGen program.
I am very fortunate to represent the FAA Technical Center in my
district, which is the Nation's premier aviation research and
development, test and evaluation facility, and the primary
facility supporting NextGen, as well as many other vital
aviation safety initiatives.
I have seen firsthand the development of technologies at
the Tech Center that are now being deployed and in use in the
National Airspace System. These technologies, many of which
contributed to the survival of so many passengers aboard the
Asiana flight 214, are improving the safety and efficiency of
the civil aviation system. That is why I believe that the
validation and testing of NextGen and other critical safety and
modernization initiatives should continue to be conducted at
the Tech Center.
However, I also know that there are serious concerns
regarding the FAA's ability to effectively and efficiently
implement NextGen. I have heard that some ``transformational''
NextGen programs aren't truly transformational, that the FAA
will never make the tough decisions required to advance
NextGen, and that nobody can really agree what NextGen is today
or what it should be in 2025.
These concerns should not be downplayed, ignored, or
outright dismissed. Whether or not you agree with them is not
relevant. We--and the taxpayers, more importantly, and airspace
users--have invested billions of dollars in NextGen, and it is
clear that billions more will need to be invested. Every
concern should be acknowledged, reviewed, and properly
addressed.
I also want to make clear that I am not pointing the finger
at any specific person for perceived or actual problems with
NextGen. In particular, Administrator Huerta, this is not
directed at you. But the NextGen program is a decade old, and
there are a lot of people that share the responsibility for
what has taken place or what has not taken place, including
people within the FAA, the aviation industry, and Congress
itself for what we maybe have not done or not done as well as
we should have done.
The inspector general is here today to outline a number of
problems with advancing NextGen that he and his inspectors and
auditors have identified. I look forward to hearing his
findings and recommendations. This report provides an
opportunity for all of us to hit the reset button and make sure
that we are headed in the right direction, in the most
efficient and effective way, and with the best outcome. We have
to plan appropriately, in particular with the upcoming budget
constraints which could have a big impact on all FAA
operations.
I expect DOT Secretary Foxx, Administrator Huerta, Deputy
Administrator Mike Whitaker, and industry stakeholders to work
together to get the program back on track, yielding the
benefits that all of us want to see.
Most of you know that by now my door is always open, and if
there is anything that I can do, or more importantly we as the
committee can do, we hope that you do not hesitate to ask.
I also want to add that I have worked very closely with
Congressman Larsen over the years, and especially now with this
session of Congress, with this Aviation Subcommittee, I think
we are of exactly the same mind with our focus and direction
and how we would like to see things move forward.
So with that, Rick, I will now yield to you for your
opening statement.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks, Frank. And I want to thank the chairman
for calling today's hearing to review the implementation of
NextGen.
Mr. Chairman, you and I have led this subcommittee for only
a few months, but I believe we are both committed to making
sure that the FAA's NextGen effort succeeds, and this
subcommittee must provide the FAA with the authority and
resources that it needs to be successful. We also have to
provide vigorous oversight to ensure necessary corrections to
guarantee NextGen stays on track.
And if you will allow me just to divert briefly from my
prepared remarks, in looking at the testimony of both
Administrator Huerta and Inspector General Scovel, it reminds
me of a term that I think law enforcement uses to describe when
two or more people look at the same crime scene or the same
crime incident, and conclude two or three or four very
different things happening. It is called the Rashomon effect.
And reading the testimony from both folks, it seems like two
people are looking at the same thing and coming up with two
very different conclusions about what happened.
Now, the term ``Rashomon'' is from the movie by Akira
Kurosawa, some might know, called ``Rashomon.'' And it details
a very tragic incident that happens and it really gets down--in
the movie it really--it sort of devolves into the cesspool of
existentialism about what is the truth and what is the meaning
of truth.
I hope we don't get to that point in this hearing about
what is NextGen and what are the concerns with it. Otherwise,
we may be in a lot of trouble. But I do think that we have to
provide some pretty aggressive oversight to get at what are the
actual problems and what are the next steps that we do need to
take.
The FAA has clearly made some progress in its efforts to
implement NextGen. For example, the agency has advanced the
ADS-B program that will be the NextGen satellite-based
successor to radar for tracking aircraft. FAA has deployed more
than 500 ADS-B ground stations and is on track to deploy all
700 ground stations on time in early 2014.
But it has experienced setbacks. According to the inspector
general, a $330 million cost overrun and 4-year delay on the
ERAM, or En Route Automation Modernization program, has delayed
the start of new NextGen programs. And after examining the
inspector general's report, I am concerned that without
changes, delays in NextGen may force us to rename it LastGen.
We have a lot of work to do.
The FAA's approach to implementing NextGen has changed
since Congress tasked the FAA with transitioning to NextGen a
decade ago. For example, in 2005 the administration at the time
requested and received cuts to the FAA's capital account,
leading to the termination of some early efforts to achieve
NextGen capabilities.
In 2009, FAA shifted its strategic focus to delivering
NextGen benefits to airspace users in the midterm 2018
timeframe. The FAA took this action at the urging of industry
stakeholders who participated in the RTCA's Midterm
Implementation Task Force. Yet, while the FAA has been working
to maximize early NextGen benefits, the inspector general will
testify this morning that the FAA has not made several key
long-term decisions that will ultimately shape the
capabilities, timing, and costs of NextGen.
So therefore I look forward to hearing Inspector General
Scovel and Administrator Huerta's explanations of the reasons
why these long-term decisions have not been made. Additionally,
I want to hear how the FAA intends to respond to budgetary
pressures that will undoubtedly affect future NextGen
implementation. In May, the chairman and I hosted a NextGen
listening session where industry participants told us the FAA
stood down its NextGen metroplex initiatives due to
sequestration.
In response, I wrote to Administrator Huerta asking him to
explain that situation and have yet to receive a formal reply.
So I do look forward to hearing Administrator Huerta's answer
providing the subcommittee with an update on this issue.
And last month, the House Appropriations Committee reported
a fiscal year 2014 transportation appropriations bill with
historically low capital funding levels for the FAA. H.R. 2610
would provide $2.1 billion for the FAA's facilities and
equipment account for 2014. That is 22 percent less than the
Administration's request. Moreover, it is a cut below the 2013
post-sequester funding level and the authorized 2014 funding
level this committee provided in the FAA reauthorization.
The House transportation appropriations bill would provide
the lowest level of capital funding for FAA since the start of
the NextGen program and the lowest level since 2000. Clearly,
the Administration is expecting budget cuts to have a
significant impact on NextGen. Last Friday Administrator Huerta
asked the RTCA Advisory Committee, the NextGen Advisory
Committee to develop a prioritized list of NextGen activities
that will be triaged due to budget cuts and sequestration. And
I want to hear the Administrator's explanation why he asked the
NAC to undertake this project and how it will influence NextGen
strategy.
On a positive note, we now have stable leadership for
NextGen that we have not had in the past. Administrator Huerta,
who led the NextGen effort for years, was sworn in for a 5-year
term as Administrator late last year, and just last month the
Obama administration appointed a Deputy Administrator who will
serve a 5-year term as the chief NextGen officer, as required
by the FAA bill.
Mr. Chairman, NextGen's success will rely on a strong
partnership between Government and industry. As an airline
industry veteran, Deputy Administrator Whitaker is well
positioned to reach out to the industry stakeholders and
leverage the collaboration needed to move NextGen forward.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to provide an opening statement, and look forward
to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Rick.
With that, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material for the record of this hearing. Without
objection, so ordered.
Now, I would like to turn to our panel.
And first, Administrator Huerta, welcome, and we look
forward to your statement.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MICHAEL P. HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. CALVIN L. SCOVEL III,
INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member
Larsen, and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on the progress we are
making with NextGen.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin my testimony I want to express
that our thoughts and prayers are with the passengers and crew
of Asiana flight 214 and their families. I am sure the
committee appreciates that the ongoing accident investigation
is in the early stages, and I am not able to speculate about
the cause of the crash. The FAA is fully supporting the
investigation of the National Transportation Safety Board and
we will continue to do so throughout the process.
We are also fully supporting the NTSB investigation into
the crash of an air taxi in Alaska earlier this month. Our
thoughts and prayers are with those families as well. And we
are participating in the investigation of the fire aboard the
Ethiopian Airways Boeing 787 in London last week. The FAA has
sent a specialist to Heathrow Airport in support of the British
Government's investigation into that incident.
Safety is our mission at the FAA, and we are working to
continuously enhance our policies and procedures. Last week we
issued a new rule requiring more hours of experience for first
officers who fly for U.S. airlines, and we are also requiring
that first officers earn a type rating, which involves
additional training and testing specific to the aircraft they
fly.
The Next Generation Air Transportation System is helping us
to enhance safety and efficiency by transforming our aviation
infrastructure. NextGen technologies guide aircraft on more
direct routes, they save fuel, and decrease delays. That is not
only good for the environment, it saves the airlines money, and
it is good for business.
We are delivering the objectives of NextGen as promised. We
have consistently met more than 80 percent of our
implementation milestones over the last 5 years, which is
extraordinary when dealing with a complex technological
program. Overall, NextGen is on track, and yes, there have been
delays, but we have learned from these and incorporated those
lessons in the way we move forward.
We are making all of these improvements in a very dynamic
operating environment. We have found that collaboration is the
key to success and to providing the best benefit to all
stakeholders. We have a detailed plan to implement NextGen, and
this plan is integrated into our enterprise architecture for
our entire National Airspace System. At the same time, we are
flexible enough to adjust our course. This approach is working
and we are delivering benefits to our stakeholders now.
A good example is Memphis, where we have increased airport
capacity by more than 20 percent since last fall. By working
with our partners we were able to revise wake turbulence
separation standards. This allows aircraft to safely depart,
one behind another, slightly closer together than before.
In Atlanta, we work to safely allow jets to take off on
headings that are slightly closer together. This small change
has resulted in a 10-percent increase in departures per hour
from the world's busiest airport. We estimate customers have
saved more than 11,000 hours of waiting in line to take off
last year thanks to NextGen.
We expect these improvements will save the airlines $20
million this year in Atlanta alone, and we intend to bring this
type of efficiency to other major airports. We have brought
together all of our stakeholders--airports, airlines, our air
traffic controllers, managers, and other Federal agencies--to
decrease congestion in the airspace over busy metropolitan
areas nationwide. Through the metroplex initiative we are
working in north Texas and Houston, northern and southern
California, Atlanta, Charlotte, and right here in Washington,
DC. Airlines flying into the DC metro area have started using
these NextGen procedures. We estimate they will save $2.3
million in fuel per year and cut greenhouse gas emissions by
7,300 metric tons. And these benefits will increase as we
develop more procedures.
Just as industry depends on us to deliver the best benefits
now, we depend on industry to share information with us to help
us measure the benefits that NextGen provides. As I said
earlier, collaboration is key. Only by investing the time,
dedication, and commitment, will we continue to see the best
benefits.
Mr. Chairman, last year Congress reauthorized the FAA for 4
years and laid out a vision with bipartisan consensus to
address the future needs of our aviation system. These needs
have not gone away. Yet, under the sequester and the current
climate of fiscal uncertainty, the FAA needs to make sizeable
budget cuts that affect our operations, NextGen, and our
future.
This uncertainty undermines the roadmap that the FAA and
Congress laid out for NextGen. It was only last year that we
all agreed that these goals were extremely important to protect
the great contribution that civil aviation makes to our
national economy.
We are facing many challenges, but we must stay the course.
Our aviation system needs these improvements, and the cost of
not doing them is far greater than the cost of moving forward.
It is important for us to work together to ensure that the
United States continues to lead the world in aviation
technology.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you, Administrator Huerta.
Our second witness today is Department of Transportation
Inspector General Mr. Calvin Scovel.
Inspector General Scovel, you are recognized for your
statement.
Mr. Scovel. Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen,
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
on FAA's NextGen program.
Transforming our Nation's aging air traffic system is
critical to meet the increasingly complex demands on airspace
while maintaining the highest levels of safety. While FAA has
made progress since it launched the program a decade ago, such
as responding to a Government-industry task force, publishing a
rule on ADS-B, and establishing a new organizational structure,
many NextGen initiatives are still in the early stages of
development. My testimony today will focus on three priorities
for advancing NextGen: addressing the underlying causes for
limited progress, maximizing near-term benefits, and
successfully implementing critical automation systems such as
ERAM.
A number of weaknesses have contributed to the problems in
advancing NextGen. FAA's original plans for NextGen contained
in its 2005 progress report to Congress did not establish
priorities, fully develop requirements, specify how
technologies would be developed or integrated, or address
implementation costs. By 2009 both FAA and industry recognized
and agreed that FAA's initial goals of completing NextGen by
2025 at a cost of $40 billion would not be possible.
Developing adequate plans with realistic expectations still
remains a challenge, largely because FAA has yet to make
critical design decisions that will serve as the foundation for
NextGen's future. For example, FAA has yet to decide on the
level of automation needed to manage air traffic and how much
responsibility for separating aircraft should be delegated to
pilots and what should remain with air traffic controllers.
These decisions will significantly impact NextGen requirements,
capabilities, timing, and costs.
Organizational instability and gaps in leadership have
impeded implementation and further undermined FAA's advancement
of NextGen. Establishing clear lines of accountability and
authority will be key to securing progress. FAA's recent
reorganization, the third in less than 10 years, is a step
forward to improve NextGen's management, but ultimately the key
to success will be in FAA's execution.
Securing stakeholder buy-in is another significant
roadblock to advancing NextGen. Industry representatives and
other stakeholders continue to express skepticism that FAA will
be able to deliver planned capabilities. Until FAA clearly
defines how NextGen technologies will benefit users, air
carriers will remain reluctant to invest in costly NextGen
equipment.
A key component to gaining user support for NextGen will be
integrating new performance-based navigation routes and
procedures at major airports. Navigation procedures, such as
RNAV and RNP, can provide significant near-term benefits,
including reduced congestion, more direct flight paths, and
fuel savings.
FAA has made progress in designing new advanced procedures
at busy airports. However, implementing them has been delayed
due to obstacles such as a lengthy procedure development
process, outdated controller procedures, and limited training
for controllers.
Moreover, air carriers are not widely using procedures that
have been implemented. For example, at the six large airports
in Chicago, New York, and Washington, where FAA has implemented
curved runway approaches, only about 3 percent of eligible
flights have used them, due in part to a lack of tools to help
controllers manage aircraft using varying routes and equipment.
Finally, NextGen's success will depend on effectively
implementing automation systems for controllers that will
enable key NextGen capabilities, including the use of satellite
surveillance and data-link communications. For example, FAA's
efforts to modernize automation systems at 11 large terminal
facilities may cost much more and take longer than estimated
because the agency has not finalized software and hardware
requirements.
FAA faces similar challenges in implementing its
multibillion-dollar ERAM system, which processes flight data at
en route facilities. FAA has worked hard to resolve previous
software problems, and controllers are now using ERAM at 16 of
20 sites, at least part-time. However, considerable work
remains to complete the effort by 2014 as planned. In addition,
the ERAM contract currently costs about $12 million a month,
and if this contract burn rate does not decrease significantly,
FAA will need additional funds to complete the program.
NextGen is at a critical juncture. Near-term operational
benefits are needed to gain industry confidence in FAA's plans
and encourage users to invest. Sustained leadership with clear
lines of authority and accountability is key to developing an
executable plan that is linked to the agency's budget and that
resolves underlying causes for delays.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would
be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Scovel.
Administrator Huerta, the FAA Technical Center has been the
primary facility for testing and evaluating NextGen
technologies. Do you see that role changing for the Tech Center
in the future?
Mr. Huerta. I don't. The Tech Center serves a very
important role for the FAA. It is our principal test bed. It is
a place where we test deployment of new technology, where we do
a lot of human-in-the-loop simulations, and where we run
operational tests. I don't see that changing at all.
Mr. LoBiondo. OK. The FAA is blessed with great talent at
many different levels, and I have seen the outstanding work
sort of up close and personal and the dedication at the Tech
Center. How does the FAA plan to continue to utilize the
expertise at the Tech Center to advance NextGen?
Mr. Huerta. Well, the Tech Center serves for us as our
principal test and evaluation platform. And in that capacity,
it plays an important role in integrating the deployment of
technology into the actual operation that is ultimately going
to take advantage of this.
NextGen is more than just a technological platform. It
actually has to be workable for the users of the system. And
so, in addition to ensuring that the technology will be useful
for supporting our needs for air traffic in the future, we also
have to understand everything involved in making it operational
within the real world environment, and that is where the human-
in-the-loop piece comes in. The Tech Center really is the place
where all of those things come together, which enables us to
make the determinations and the decisions as to how we actually
deploy technology in the field.
Mr. LoBiondo. I hope you can clear something up for me. On
a couple of previous occasions we have asked you about the
status of the facility's realignment and consolidation plan,
which is required under the Modernization and Reform Act. And I
believe you indicated that the plan was underway, and that the
FAA was looking at the whole country; in other words, to be a
very comprehensive plan. In the IG's written testimony, he
indicates that the FAA has scaled back its plans and will focus
only on an integrated facility in the New York metropolitan
area. Could you clarify for us what the FAA is doing in terms
of developing a comprehensive plan and how that meets with the
mandate?
Mr. Huerta. Sure. Those are two different things. For
years, as you point out, we have looked at the question of how
to realign and consolidate aging facilities. And we appreciate
the thought and vision that went into the process that was
outlined by Congress, and we recognize that you provided us
with an important tool.
As I have testified previously, we do have underway a very
significant effort where we are looking at the whole country,
and what we are doing is that--as you know, we have had
difficulty in achieving consolidation of facilities in the
past. And so to address the previous shortfalls that we have
had in this area for facility consolidation, the FAA has taken
a holistic approach, including our workforce and subject matter
experts in developing the process and recommendations that will
guide realignments of future facilities.
We have a multidisciplinary work group of FAA and workforce
representatives, and they are developing a process and
recommendation for evaluating our existing terminal air traffic
facilities for potential realignments. The draft process and
initial recommendations have been briefed to several industry
stakeholders, including the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Customer Forum, which includes representatives of
the airlines and of general aviation.
Now, I recognize that developing this approach has been
slower than what Congress has asked for. It has also taken
longer than I would have wished, slowed in part by the
management and financial challenges that we have faced. That
said, we are creating an approach that has the ability to
deliver much more efficient and effective infrastructure for
the FAA.
I anticipate that we will work with you here in this
committee, in Congress, and with the aviation industry, to
evaluate operationally viable scenarios for facility
realignments and consolidations, and we look forward to
briefing the committee on this.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. And the last question, Mr. Huerta,
which I will ask you to, for the record, to provide the
subcommittee in writing with a detailed status, and that is on
performance-based navigation, I think we all can agree that is
a cornerstone of NextGen. When you testified before this
subcommittee earlier this year, you stated that the FAA's two
reports on implementing performance-based navigation as
required under the Modernization and Reform Act were
forthcoming. So if you could provide to us in writing in detail
we would appreciate that so we can review where that is.
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please refer to Mr. Huerta's status update in response to Hon.
LoBiondo's question number 5 on page 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LoBiondo. OK.
I have, Mr. Scovel, I have questions for you, but in
deference to the other committee members, I will now turn to
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually will start
with Inspector General Scovel.
In my opening statement, I discussed the proposed House
transportation appropriations bill to provide $2.1 billion for
a facilities and equipment account for FAA. If enacted, that
would represent the lowest capital funding level for FAA in the
history of the NextGen program. In your view, how would those
proposed funding levels continue to affect the implementation
challenges that exist in NextGen?
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Larsen, we have conferred with FAA on that
specific matter, as well as your staff. Our understanding is
that at those funding levels the agency would be required to
constrain its efforts greatly in regard to NextGen and in fact
would have to devote almost all of its attention and much of
its funding permitted by Congress to simply sustaining the
current system as it exists today.
Mr. Larsen. Administrator Huerta, could you comment on my
question as well?
Mr. Huerta. As you know, there are various components to
our budget. The House bill increases operations funding enough
to maintain day-to-day NAS operations, but it does jeopardize
both near-term and long-term capital investments that are
needed to rebuild the aviation system in the future.
In particular, as the inspector general pointed out, the
facilities and equipment account is where we have the greatest
concern; the House appropriation bill is $623 million below the
President's budget request and $439 million below what we have
in fiscal year 2013.
The House level would provide the lowest F&E funding level
since 2000, as you pointed out in your opening statement. It
includes both targeted and undistributed reductions,
specifically $259 million of targeted cuts, of which $43.6
million, or 4.7 percent, is from NextGen programs, and $214.9
million, or 11.6 percent, from legacy programs. But there is
also $364.3 million of an undistributed reduction, and
alternatives for this allocation are being developed by our
capital team.
What this forces us to do is to make tradeoffs between
continued maintenance of the current infrastructure and NextGen
modernization efforts. The focus would need to be that a state
of good repair is maintained, and NextGen capabilities
supporting information sharing and programs that are nearing
completion in fiscal year 2014, which provide near-term
improvements, would be taken to completion. However, the
NextGen programs just getting underway would likely need to be
suspended.
A NextGen slowdown would affect the economy. An Aerospace
Industries Association study found that a reduction of 30
percent in the NextGen funding could result in up to $40
billion in lost economic output by 2021. It could cost 700,000
jobs by 2021 and as many as 1.3 million by 2035. I recognize
these are difficult tradeoffs, but as I said in my opening
statement, it winds up costing far more in the long term if we
delay NextGen now.
Mr. Larsen. And those, the budget numbers are numbers you
lay out before the 2014 sequestration numbers kick in?
Mr. Huerta. Yes, this is based on the House mark. Under a
sequester scenario there are different flavors of it, and part
of it depends on how the appropriations bills come out for the
entire Government and whether they are consistent with the
Budget Control Act.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah.
Mr. Huerta. Under a scenario where we would start the year
on a continuing resolution with no anomalies, in an F&E context
we would actually be somewhat better off than this, but far
worse off in the operation account.
Mr. Larsen. Yeah, right. Right. Last Friday you asked the
RTCA NextGen Advisory Committee to develop a prioritized list
of NextGen activities that would be triaged due to budget cuts
and sequestration. Would you explain why you asked NAC to
undertake that project and how it will influence FAA's NextGen
strategy, Administrator.
Mr. Huerta. We have had a lot of discussions in our
industry consultation through the NAC and through other forums
about the general climate of fiscal uncertainty. As you and the
chairman and other Members have all mentioned, we are operating
under significant fiscal constraints as a country as a whole.
The industry has indicated, and we have agreed, that it would
be prudent for us to have a clear sense of our key priorities
to ensure that we have the maximum level of focus as we enter
this more uncertain fiscal climate.
As a general matter, I think that we all agree that we are
in a far better place in a constrained fiscal environment if we
are focusing on a state of good repair and perhaps needing to
consider doing fewer things but doing them well, and seeing
them through to completion, as opposed to an across-the-board
reduction which only has the effect of delaying everything and
jeopardizing benefits for delivery to the aviation community.
What we are asking the NAC is, as an industry group which
represents air carriers, general aviation, suppliers,
manufacturers, where do they think the greatest focus needs to
be placed in order to minimize the impact of sequestration. As
we consider the tradeoffs here, what advice would they offer us
on what our highest priorities should be?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And when I get to a
second round, to the extent that other Members don't touch on
the differences in testimony, I will explore that. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you.
We will now turn to Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank both of you for being here. Thank you
today.
I am from Texas, I am a business guy, and I look at
everything like a business. In my district I have got Dallas/
Fort Worth Airport and Austin-Bergstrom, among a lot of smaller
ones, so I am rooting for you. But I have a question, two
questions actually, to you, Administrator. In reading the IG's
comments, they mention about organizational culture has been
slow to embrace NextGen's vision. And as a business guy, when
you don't believe in the product, it is hard to sell it. It is
hard to get involved in it. I know about that because I still
use this flip phone, and I need to get away from it.
And so what are you doing to have your folks understand
that this is the future of where we are heading and to get them
embracing it?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you, sir. I would like to answer your
question in two parts. First of all, the question of why is it
the way it is, and then what are we doing about it.
I think it is important to recognize that the FAA is
governed very much by a safety culture. Everyone is very
focused on maintaining the highest levels of safety in our
aviation system. And what that leads to is a level of caution
against trying things that are different, for a very important
reason: Individuals are concerned about messing something up.
We have a system that provides the highest levels of safety,
and there is a general belief that we want to ensure that in
deploying anything new that we are not in any way compromising
safety. That is not at all to suggest that things don't need to
change. We can always raise the bar on safety, and change is a
big part of that.
What we have found is that the best approach is through the
collaborative processes that we have implemented in the last
couple of years working with industry and working with our own
workforce to actually do the very hard work of grinding
through, what we want to deploy, what questions and concerns
stakeholders have, and how to respond to them in a real way.
That is the approach that underlies how we got ERAM back on
track. We are now operating it in 16 of our air traffic control
centers. That is the framework through which we are deploying
advanced navigation procedures in north Texas and elsewhere,
and we are actually reducing time associated with the delivery
of those procedures and directly addressing the point made by
the inspector general that publishing a procedure alone is not
enough. You actually have to work with the operators to ensure
that they have the tools that they need to actually deploy it.
What we are finding is that we need to work with all of the
stakeholders. We can't simply publish a new procedure and just
issue an order and say make it happen. We really need to work
through the full scope of the operation, and we need to be
responsive to the questions and concerns that are raised by all
the stakeholders in the system.
Mr. Williams. Well, get them going. I will dump this flip
phone if you will get NextGen cranking, OK?
Mr. Huerta. That is a deal.
Mr. Williams. All right, second question. I am also
concerned as a business guy about what we see and what we call
organizational instability, which the IG also talked about,
inconsistent leadership surrounding the program. I know that
you are filling some administrative areas, but it has been slow
in doing that. And can you explain why there has been so many
reorganizations and are we moving in a direction where we are
going to have a full team?
Mr. Huerta. I can speak to what has happened over the last
couple of years for those that I have been a part of. When I
originally joined the agency as Deputy Administrator, it was
with the thought that I would oversee the NextGen portfolio.
And as you know, I stepped into the Acting Administrator role
soon after that.
Since then, FAA reauthorization called on us to appoint a
chief NextGen officer. We did bring in a new Deputy
Administrator earlier this year, once I was confirmed as
Administrator, and we did name Mr. Whitaker as chief NextGen
officer. He is now in the process of filling out his team, and
we are very close to naming a new Assistant Administrator for
NextGen as part of the organizational restructuring that the IG
touched upon. We implemented that restructuring a couple of
years ago and it was very focused on elevating the profile of
NextGen, taking it out of the ATO, and ensuring that it had the
specific authority that the IG has mentioned in his testimony
to work across all the lines of business of the FAA.
I think that we are actually making very good progress. It
has taken longer than I would like. Part of that was driven by
the fact that for a long time I was two-hatted, serving both as
the Administrator and effectively the chief NextGen officer.
But I think that we are well launched to getting to where we
need to be organizationally.
Mr. Williams. That is good to hear. We need nine men on the
field of play.
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely.
Mr. Williams. Thank you. Appreciate you coming by,
appreciate your testimony. I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Capuano.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I have been hearing about NextGen since the day
I got on this committee, actually a little bit before that, and
it sounds great. And I am one of those supporters because
pretty much everybody I have talked to looks me in the eye and
says, great idea, great program, I am for it.
But I am starting to wonder. I mean, it has taken a really
long time to roll that out. Everybody seems to be dragging
their feet, not just the FAA, if you want the truth. Everybody
is pointing to everyone else about somebody else's
responsibility to pay for this or get this done.
And I am starting to wonder to myself, especially now with
sequester, if we are not going to be able to do, if we haven't
been able to, and we are not likely to be able to do what we
had originally wanted to do, why isn't it time to just kind of
take a deep breath, not because the proposal is a bad proposal,
but the situation has changed. There is obviously more
problems.
I mean, I like the idea that change and these kinds of
things take second place to safety concerns. I don't have any
problem with that concern. But it is obviously not what I had
been led to believe 10 years ago, or 6 years ago, or 2 years
ago, or 6 months ago.
Is it not time to just kind of take a deep breath and for
everybody just to relax, step back, look at where we have been,
look at the moneys that we currently have, look at the problems
that we have already faced and encountered, and still face and
encounter, and say, you know what, maybe we have to make it a
little longer, maybe we have to focus in on a few airports
first, maybe we need to do something different so that we can
actually live up to the expectations that we set forth?
And I don't think that is a bad thing. I don't even think
it is an anti-business thing. There isn't a businessman in the
world that I know of that hasn't made a change in their
investment plans or their business plan because they run into
unforeseen obstacles. And I don't personally think that is a
criticism of the proposal. I don't think it is a criticism of
anybody or anything. It is just simply an acceptance of the
reality.
And I am just wondering what you think of that concept, Mr.
Administrator, the idea of taking a deep breath, kind of
getting everybody back in the room again and say, OK, here we
are today, here is where we all want to go, how do we from this
point forward, not based on a plan that was put together 10
years ago or 2 years ago, how do we get from where we are to
where we want to be with the lessons we have already learned,
including the financial restraints that we now face?
Mr. Huerta. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Capuano.
The plan that the FAA has developed is designed to have an
overall architecture, but also to be flexible, to respond to
what stakeholder requirements are, and the realities of how the
industry is developing. I think that we are actually in a good
place based on the investments that we have made over the last
10 years.
Over the first 10 years, a lot of the focus has been on
foundational technologies. What does that mean? The basic
building blocks and platforms on which we build advanced
capabilities over time. So those are new automation platforms
for en route and our terminal environment. We talked about
ERAM. We talked about how we had some hiccups on that, but we
have addressed those. We are doing the same in our terminal
program. We also mentioned ADS-B, which is a foundational
technology. That is the GPS-based technology that enables us,
that ultimately can replace radar across the country.
Mr. Capuano. But, Mr. Administrator, if you have all the
technology in the world, but people refuse to use it or won't
use it for any good number of reasons----
Mr. Huerta. But let me come to that point.
Mr. Capuano. Because I am running out of time.
Mr. Huerta. OK. Well, the point is that what that now
enables is for us to focus on delivering benefit. And the big
focus for the last year has been on performance-based
navigation. That for the airlines and the users of the system
is a huge benefit because it has reduced fuel burn, reduced
cost, and reduced environmental emissions. And that is what our
metroplex initiative is all about. Let's take advantage of the
investments we have made to date. Let's focus on delivery of
benefits while, in parallel, we are looking at the longer term
initiatives.
Mr. Capuano. Mr. IG, would you agree with that statement?
Would you agree with that approach?
Mr. Scovel. I would agree with the approach that we are at
a critical juncture, and that to some extent a reset is
required. My reservation is that if the reset is to extend for
an appreciable length of time, industry and the taxpayers will
become even more frustrated with the situation that we find
ourselves in today.
I think essentially FAA is well positioned under the
leadership of this committee and in close collaboration with
industry to make just the kind of reassessment that you have
suggested, Mr. Capuano. New leadership is coming in. FAA has
established pretty good ties, my office believes, with the
NextGen Advisory Committee, and the RTCA continues to function
with them. The move last week to request priorities from the
NAC, we heartily applaud. It is much needed, especially in this
fiscal environment.
I would urge the committee to hold FAA's feet to the fire
now with the new leadership coming in and to instill, as our
statement suggests, a new sense of urgency with NextGen, which
has been lacking for much of the past decade. FAA has had the
luxury of being able to proceed across a broad front. Now they
have to narrow their attack along specific lines, and together
with industry they need to identify those priorities----
Mr. Capuano. Thank you.
Mr. Scovel [continuing]. PBN being the first and foremost.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for being here.
Mr. Huerta, I wanted to follow up on some of your written
testimony. I think in your written testimony you said we have
been transparent from the very beginning about what we intend
to accomplish, and yet here we are some 10 or 11 years later
with very little to show for it. You know, in 2004 we talked
about the transformation of Americans' airport network. And
then in 2006 we talked about an aviation revolution. In 2007, a
wide-ranging transformation. In 2008 we talked about another
transformation to the 21st-century technologies. In 2009 we
talked about being forever redefined. In 2011, a comprehensive
overhaul. And wide-ranging transformation in 2012.
Then in 2013 we changed the rhetoric to be an evolution.
And really when we talk about evolution, we think of millions
of years. And so I get concerned about that.
And then in the IG's report he talks about the 2009
internal FAA study, and it said that you did not specifically
address risk-adjusted, realistically reflect the risk-adjusted
technology in terms of feasible implementation as promised,
your own internal survey. So wouldn't you say, isn't it fair to
say that we have been maybe overambitious and unconstrained
with regards to what we hope that we can accomplish?
Mr. Huerta. I don't think we have. What we have adopted is
a segmented approach to deployment of what is, we all agree, a
very complex technological change and operational change in
terms of how we move airplanes. And we have really----
Mr. Meadows. So you feel like you have accomplished----
Mr. Huerta. I do.
Mr. Meadows [continuing]. What you set out to do 10 years
ago?
Mr. Huerta. I feel like we have made significant progress
toward a very significant change in how we manage air traffic.
Let me give you a specific example. Fundamentally, the ADS-B
technology gives us a much clearer view of what is happening in
the National Airspace System. That is very different from
radar. A way to think about it is a radar picture is sort of
the equivalent of a somewhat fuzzy view of what is going on
because it is limited by the sweep of the radar. What ADS-B
gives you is sort of the equivalent of HDTV. It is a much
clearer and more precise view which enables you to move
aircraft closer together. That makes for a much more efficient
use of the system.
Mr. Meadows. And you shared that in your opening testimony
with regards to Atlanta and how we are able to do that.
Mr. Huerta. Yes.
Mr. Meadows. But really, help us understand, because
NextGen was supposed to be this, you know, now we are moving
aircraft closer together. But from a lot of the stakeholders we
are seeing that their concern is that the FAA and many of your
employees are not buying in. It is not a buy-in or lack of a
buy-in in terms of the stakeholders. It is really a lack of a
buy-in in terms of many of the people that work for you, is
that not correct?
Mr. Huerta. It actually goes both ways. Let's talk about
what NextGen enables. It enables performance-based navigation.
I talked about earlier how, in order to successfully deploy
performance-based navigation, we must engage in collaboration.
An airline might want a particular PBN procedure that is going
to save fuel for them. They can request that we publish it, and
in the old days that is what we would have done. We would have
published it and then we would have found our operational
difficulties with it and it wouldn't have worked.
What we are doing now is we are sitting down with the
airline, the airport, the controllers, the military, and
adjacent facilities in the metropolitan area to ask the
question, OK, these guys would like to have this approach which
will reduce track miles flown, reduce their fuel burn--how do
we make it happen?
Mr. Meadows. All right. So based on these meetings that you
have had over the last 10 years, what would you say is the
probability of us seeing real transformation, not an evolution,
but real transformation and redefining within the next 10
years? Are we going to make our, you know, 2025 deadline? By
what I read, I don't see any way that we can do that at this
point.
Mr. Huerta. I don't know exactly what you would consider to
be transformation, but I can say this.
Mr. Meadows. What would you consider transformation?
Mr. Huerta. I think we will be in a very different place
where we will be handling more traffic, much more efficiently,
with a higher level of safety, and reducing fuel----
Mr. Meadows. But if we don't know--OK, but if we don't know
where we are going, if we are just making good progress, we are
still lost.
Mr. Huerta. No, we do know where we are going. We have an
enterprise architecture that has specific building blocks. I
talked about the foundational programs that we are building,
and we are overlaying additional technological capabilities on
top of them. And that is very clearly laid out in the NextGen
implementation plan that we publish every year, along with
specific milestones and schedules for meeting them.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And let me
express my appreciation to Administrator Huerta and Inspector
General Scovel for being here.
Of course, I have been listening to the NextGen debate in
this committee now for quite a while. And I think I know why
quite a bit of it has not been implemented: It is hard to do it
without money.
But I do look at the Inspector General's that controller
policies and procedures have not been updated and remains an
unresolved obstacle, which makes it uncertain when airspace
users can expect widespread benefits.
What is causing this delay other than some money, I know,
and updating the controller policies? And as an addendum to
that question, there is a small airport near Dallas in
Mesquite, Texas--and I have had just about every airport around
Dallas County now in the last 21 years or more--completed
recently a new control tower funded, with the commitment that
it would be furnished with air controllers. Now that it is
finished, they can't get a commitment or an answer as to
whether or not they will get this air controller. Could you
comment on that and the previous question?
Mr. Huerta. Thank you. Let me talk first about the question
that you asked with respect to how do we integrate with
controllers. One of the things that was identified in working
with our industry stakeholders was that we needed to focus on
rewriting the Air Traffic Control Handbook; that that is a very
important provision in order to unlock the benefits of NextGen.
In July of last year, we set a goal for this year to make
progress in rewriting the controller handbook to keep up with
modern air traffic capabilities in the NextGen era. And here is
the specific issue we needed to address: what are the rules
under which controllers will authorize and ensure that advanced
navigation procedures can actually be operationalized,
particularly in congested metropolitan areas?
To accomplish this task effectively we have been working
with NATCA, with aircraft traffic control management, and the
aviation community to identify the most important changes for
each of these groups. And we found that the requested changes
fell into two categories: current standards that we needed to
update as a result of new technology, and cases where changes
have been made but the criteria that I was talking about for
conducting advanced operations has not been completely
established.
We identified a consolidated list of 15 specific changes
that would enable us to address these issues. We expect to
complete 10 of them by the end of this fiscal year with the
following 5 to be completed thereafter.
The revisions to the handbook are things that we have to be
very careful about, and we have to do them in accordance with
our safety management systems. Safety management systems are a
systematic and continuous management process to proactively
identify, analyze, and mitigate safety risk. And these 15
changes are just the first step as we continue to work
collaboratively with our internal and external stakeholders to
write a long-term plan and to address these specific
operational problems that you are talking about.
Going to your point about Mesquite, Texas, I will need to
check into the specifics of that and we will provide a response
to you after the hearing.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Scovel, you indicated in your written testimony that
the FAA has made little progress in shifting from planning to
implementation on NextGen and delivering benefits to the
airspace users. Would you please expand on this statement,
explain how you are measuring that progress?
Mr. Scovel. It is very difficult to measure. And thanks,
that was exactly our point. Over the last 10 years, FAA set
overly ambitious NextGen goals and what it believed would be
achievable in its 2005 progress report to Congress on NextGen.
By 2009 those goals and the vision for NextGen had changed
rather drastically, from a 2025 completion date to at least 10
years later, and in the view of the JPDO and the contractor who
worked with them to complete that report, a final cost figure
of two to three times the original $40 billion estimate. This
changed the picture drastically but FAA did not communicate
this to Congress.
Since then, there have been other problems with FAA's
organization of its NextGen effort, and now FAA finds itself
confronted with a very difficult fiscal environment. It is time
for FAA to look in close consultation with industry at what is
most achievable in the short term. And our consultation with
industry would lead us to recommend to FAA performance-based
navigation--and we believe they are fully on board with that--
as well as continuing their emphasis with the automation
platforms, ERAM, and substituting STARS for Common ARTS at
their specific TRACON locations, and then confronting the
critical design decisions that will be needed to fully maximize
potential benefits from ADS-B and DataComm. Specifically, FAA
must address level of automation that will be required and also
the division of responsibility between cockpit and ground
systems for managing aircraft.
Until those design decisions are made, the true benefits of
NextGen cannot be realized.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you both. I yield back. My time has
expired.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Administrator Huerta, I appreciate you coming in, as
always, taking the time to come up to the Hill.
My question is a little bit different. It does deal with
delays, however, but it is on technology delay, which I was
specifically speaking to some of the technology out there on
spin, you know, or making aircraft spin resistant, which has
been going on forever. And I know ICON has got some new
technology out there and they are trying to get an exemption
from the weight limit when it comes to light sport, which was
kind of arbitrarily set, and I think that should be based on
performance and complexity of aircraft. But that is a whole
other issue.
Mr. Graves. But I was surprised to find out that they
applied for an exemption that is 15 months old. And I have got
letters here from Senator Inhofe and Congressman Petri and
various industry groups asking for some sort of resolution. I
have got a letter from the FAA, too, on this saying that they
would have a response to their request from you all at the end
of last year, 2012. And I know I am kind of hitting you with
this, and I don't intend to hit you blind side, I just would
like to get an answer, have you get back to me and give me an
answer on when they are going to have some resolution, because
they can't move this technology forward unless they get an
exemption and get an answer to that. So I would appreciate that
very much, they need a decision on that.
I am always interested in new technology, and particularly
when it comes to Spin Resistance, Aircoupe started this way
back in the 1940s, you know, now we have ICON doing and it is
fascinating, as a pilot, it is fascinating. And that is one of
the things obviously that gets a lot of pilots in trouble is
getting into a stall spin situation. So if have you any comment
on that, I sure would appreciate it.
Mr. Huerta. I am not familiar with the status, Congressman
Graves, but we will get you a response.
Mr. Graves. OK. And I was afraid of that, I didn't mean to
hit you blind side and that is the reason I am not going to
press it today, but I would like a response right away on that.
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely.
Mr. Graves. I appreciate that, and thank you very much for
coming in. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mrs. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator Huerta,
thank you for being here. You know, I represent Las Vegas and
tourism and air travel are key to our economy. Forty-five
percent of the people who come to Las Vegas come through
McCarran Airport. I talked to the folks at McCarran before this
hearing because I wanted to get some feel for how they are
dealing with the problems that we are addressing here and the
NextGen. And I am glad to report that they are pretty satisfied
with what has happened. They give you good marks for what has
happened so far. But like most people in the comments you heard
today, they are concerned about when something else is going to
happen and they would like to see that sooner rather than
later.
Well, it sounds like from listening to you and to the
inspector general, that you are pretty aware of what the
problems are, we are not telling you anything with these
questions. I hear you talk about the identified management
problems, the resistant culture, the need for reliable data.
You addressed that with a monitor study, a change of personnel,
better coordination with other agencies, more involvement with
stakeholders. I appreciate all that.
The elephant in the room that nobody wants to really talk
about is money, now you have had to deal with a sequester, but
if you look at the latest Republican Transportation
appropriation bill, that cuts more than half a billion dollars
from FAA. So how are you going to make any progress under those
kind of circumstances?
Mr. Huerta. That is a challenge. The House appropriations
bill would significantly impact, I would say, devastate our
facilities and equipment account, and that is the account
through which we fund both the maintenance of our legacy
infrastructure as well as the deployment of new capabilities.
It is $623 million below the President's request, and $439
million below where we are this year. And so it is a
significant challenge. It is for that reason, as I was talking
about with Mr. Larsen, that we have asked industry to share
with us what they would like to see as priorities if we need to
deal with that.
Personally, I believe that it is extremely important for us
to stay the course. This is a very complex technological
evolution, and it is one in which the United States has very
significant leadership. We are working closely with our
international stakeholders because air traffic is a global
system, and trying to ensure that we have common procedures,
common approaches to how we redesign the airspace, not just
here in the United States, but internationally. And as a result
of being where we are and the commitment that we have all made
as a Nation to this, we are in a very significant leadership
position, and in a place where we can really drive what the
international standards are going to be for the entire aviation
system worldwide.
I think that for us to step back from that becomes a very
serious thing. Aviation was invented in America and we have
always represented the cutting edge of technology and it is
important that we continue that.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Ribble.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
both of you for coming back again. It is a little bit like
Groundhog Day to me, it sounds a lot like last year's report
that we got. We a got a relatively rosy report from the agency
and a relatively negative report from inspector general and
this year kind of the same thing.
I guess I will start with you, Mr. Scovel, you have made a
lot of recommendations over the period of time, dozens and
dozens and dozens of recommendations. How do you feel the FAA
has been responding to those?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Ribble. Generally, FAA is
responsive. Part of our audit process is to confer closely with
the agency as we work our way through the audit. We have what
is called an exit conference at the end where we present our
findings and planned recommendations. FAA always gives us a
very thoughtful effort in their assessment of those
recommendations, and quite often concurs with those and we are
pleased with that. However, an administrative point that
worries us as auditors is that not only FAA, but other agencies
in the Department take quite a bit of time to get their
comments back to us and that raises questions to us about the
timeliness and relevance of our work.
I would say our relationship overall with regard to our
recommendations with FAA is quite good. We have a number of
open recommendations from past reports, specifically regarding
NextGen. I could tick off a couple of those that we consider
most significant.
By the way, we have briefed FAA on our tentative findings
on the current audit that forms the basis for our testimony
this morning. We intend to focus our recommendations first on
the critical path for NextGen implementation. We will focus as
well on FAA's reorganization of its NextGen implementation
entities to try to drive at some of the programmatic and
organizational challenges that we discuss in our statement
regarding leadership, organizational culture and the sense of
urgency.
Of our past recommendations from April 2012, the highlight
was our recommendation for an integrated master schedule. In
fact, we have highlighted before this committee and also before
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, that this
is one of our top five open recommendations across the entire
Department of Transportation. The integrated master schedule
will form the basis for FAA to make better informed choices
regarding priorities, and sequencing, and also the consequences
of decisions down range. The key is the ripple effect, if you
will--specifically concerning time on many diverse and
interdependent programs.
That gets us to delay, and we understand from the users
that their principle pain point right now is the perception
that there has been a lot of time and undue delay in
implementing NextGen capabilities. But we have also recommended
to FAA in June 2010 that they document interdependencies
between systems and procedures, that they identify critical
path issues or decisions in terms of airspace changes, and
finally that they assess safety and implementation risks of
mixed equipage operations and develop corresponding mitigation
strategies and policies.
All those recommendations and those last three remain open
from 2010. In fact, we understand FAA has been working to
implement them, but until we have further meetings and
documentation from the agency, we will not close them because
we want to be able to report to the Congress that FAA has
indeed responded fully to the intent as well as to a letter of
those recommendations.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you. Mr. Huerta. You talk a little bit
earlier about the culture of safety at FAA, and I really want
to commend FAA, I get an airplane every single weekend, and
quite frankly, I never even think about safety. The airline
industry and what FAA and NTSB have done over the last several
decades has been a stunning achievement, quite frankly, to the
point--you fly all over the country and not even be concerned
about it to be quite honest with you.
Is it possible, however, and I have seen this in other
organizations where a culture of safety, I have seen employees
who are so safety-focused that they hop on a parallel path of a
culture of fear, where fear now pervades the fear of making any
mistake whatsoever, inhibits them from making any change at all
whatsoever and it can impede progress. Are you observing any of
that? Is there any concern of that?
Mr. Huerta. That is something that has about a concern of
the aviation industry in general for a long time. I think the
industry in its totality, and the FAA as a part of this, has
really tried to address this issue head on through nonpunitive
reporting mechanisms where individuals can identify a problem
without fear of retribution. On the carrier side, it is
programs such as ASAP where they can identify issues that might
represent a safety risk so that they can be dealt with. On the
air traffic side our counterpart is ATSAP, where controllers
can identify are there procedural issues? Are there challenges?
I think what you are talking about is extremely important.
It is something that we are very focused on and that is really
the entire underpinning of our collaborative efforts to try to
bring all stakeholders together and recognize that air traffic
management is a shared responsibility. Everyone wants to see a
safe system, an efficient system, and they want it to be
adaptable to new technologies and to new operational
characteristics. That is a very positive development.
The downside of it is that it takes time, because it
requires you to build levels of trust, levels of understanding,
and a familiarity and working relationship, which is really
critical to ensure that you are able to deliver actual
benefits. While it takes longer, I am all for it, because you
get a better result. It is a result that sticks, and it is a
result that people can actually use and which really delivers
benefits.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Scovel, you talk a little bit
about the integrated master schedule. Did you say and did I
miss what you believe the status of the integrated master
schedule is?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't say and I
appreciate the opportunity to clarify that. FAA is working on
that recommendation. We are informed that by December of this
year, FAA anticipates completing that work. We will have a
chance to look at it, and we will assess whether it meets the
intent and letter of the recommendation, and perhaps be in a
position to close it at that point.
Mr. LoBiondo. You do believe that is key to how we move
forward?
Mr. Scovel. It is key and the effort is underway on the
part of FAA.
Mr. LoBiondo. You identified some of the challenges and
development and implementation of NextGen, could you tell us
what you believe the problems are? I mean, is this funding
related? Is it organizationally related? What do you believe is
the root of this?
Mr. Scovel. Mr. Chairman, we don't believe looking at the
past record that funding has been a problem. Congress has been
fairly generous with the agency for its NextGen lines of
businesses, to the tune of $3.8 billion since 2008. As I
mentioned earlier, FAA has had the luxury of being able to try
to proceed on a pretty broad front across transformational
programs, both longer range as well as trying its hand at some
of the near-term improvements that the users have been most
eager for.
Now the situation is different with regard to funding and
FAA will have to make some very tough priority decisions in
consultation with the users. However, there are programmatic
and organizational challenges that are outlined in our
statement concerning organizational culture, inconsistent
leadership, leading to a different messaging of vision and so
forth. Programmatic problems have led to some of the technical
difficulties that the agency has encountered, specifically with
ERAM, which would be the best example of that. We anticipate
the agency will also encounter similar challenges as it
modernizes its automation platform in the TRACON facilities.
So all of those technical programmatic and organizational
challenges persist with NextGen. We would say while funding in
the past may not have been a problem, certainly it is, as was
mentioned earlier, the elephant in the room for FAA and this
committee today.
Mr. LoBiondo. Do you have any specific recommendations for
either Congress in general, or the Transportation Committee or
the Aviation Subcommittee of what additionally we can or should
do to help move this along?
Mr. Scovel. I think Administrator Huerta has laid out a
pretty good outline of what he thinks the agency needs in order
to advance NextGen, even facing the difficult fiscal challenges
that we all know he faces today. I would urge the committee and
Congress to hold FAA's feet to the fire, and use our office as
your tool to help you do that. We would welcome the opportunity
to further work with you and the agency to review FAA's
programs and plans, to see whether it has made good on much of
what Administrator Huerta has said today regarding
prioritization--further collaboration with users and its
workforce, the near-term steps with PBN and metroplex
improvements, automation platform modernization with ERAM and
at the TRACONs, and then confronting the very difficult
critical design decisions regarding divisional responsibility
between cockpit and ground facilities and the level of
automation. Only when those decisions are finally made--and
they are difficult policy decisions, not within the purview of
my office, but certainly for the agency and the committee--will
the long-range benefits of ADS-B and DataComm be put in place.
If final benefits are ever to be felt by the taxpayer, we
believe it will be in FAA's ability to consolidate and realign
its facilities as ADS-B fully reaches its potential--perhaps to
make adjustments to the workforce, certainly to close some of
its most aging facilities and to consolidate those. But those
are difficult policy decisions for the Administration and for
the Congress.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Huerta, is there anything additional you
can think of or suggest that we can do from this end to help
you in your efforts to this humongous task?
Mr. Huerta. I think that it is important that we all
recognize that this is a very large and complex program and, as
we have talked about, we have built an excellent foundation
where we can now add additional capabilities. As you heard from
the inspector general, we have been in discussions and have
been responsive to many of the recommendations made by the
inspector general. In fact, in their most recent review of the
ERAM program, the inspector general acknowledged that
significant progress had been made in getting that program back
on track.
I think that where the committee can be helpful is to go
back to where we were with FAA reauthorization and recognize
that we had all identified, as a country, that this is an
extremely important initiative to enable us to provide support
and to maintain leadership for an aviation industry. We all
knew then that it was an incredibly complex undertaking, but
that the cost of not doing it greatly exceeded the cost of
doing it. We need to keep that in mind as we go through this
difficult climate in the years ahead.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, I would ask
unanimous consent to enter some QFRs from Mr. Nolan.
Mr. LoBiondo. Without objection so ordered.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Inspector General Scovel, getting
back to some of the things you noted, you testified initial
plans are NextGen targeted 2025 at the cost of $40 billion. And
your office said this was overly ambitious and unconstrained,
and you talked about some of the specific concepts and
capabilities that were part of initial plans for NextGen, and
whether FAA is on track to achieve them by 2025. Can you pick,
is there a poster child for this?
Mr. Scovel. For the failure to meet a 2025 deadline?
Mr. LoBiondo. Right, yeah.
Mr. Scovel. I would say it is a combination, sir, between
ADS-B and DataComm at this point. Progress has been made on
ADS-B in terms of installing the ground infrastructure,
although that has been delayed from 2013 to 2014, so we
continue to see friction there. Demonstration projects are in
line and underway, such as greater coverage in areas where we
don't have radar--Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, for instance--and
a few other demonstration projects around the country. But as
far as being able to demonstrate to users who will bear the
ultimate and quite large bill to equip with ADS-B In--and that
will be the game changer for them as well as for FAA--the
agency hasn't yet been able to confront those decisions. It may
be simply a matter of time and in a couple of years they will
be able to do that, but if that slips, 2025 is well off the
table.
DataComm is an essential program for NextGen, but it is a
program that has had its own fits and starts through the years.
You may remember, sir, that it began initially in 2003 after
$100 million investment, but was terminated in 2005 for
technical difficulties among other problems. It was resurrected
last year. It is an expensive program but users have long
memories, and they see that some users in the middle part of
last decade actually spent to equip and then had, in their
view, the rug pulled out from under them when the FAA had to
terminate the program in 2005. They are very reluctant to
repeat what they view as a mistake and so they want to see FAA
make solid, consistent and prolonged progress on DataComm
before they spend more money on it. If ADS-B and DataComm
continue to lag in their view, there is no chance of 2025.
Mr. Larsen. Thanks. Before I asked Mr. Huerta to comment, I
just never thought I would be here long enough to have anybody
say you might remember back in 2003, it is getting to be here a
little long.
Administrator Huerta, you testified though in your written
testimony FAA's delivering NextGen on time and on target. Here
are a couple of examples where there are obvious concerns. Can
you address that?
Mr. Huerta. Yes, the premise that as a result of individual
delays causing the whole program to be delayed I think is
fundamentally not correct, because what NextGen is is a series
of interrelated programs, and admittedly, we have experienced
delays with some of them. But the approach is also based very
much on showing that we have the flexibility to recover from
them and to ensure that we can reorder delivery of things so
that we can meet the overall objective, which is delivery of
the benefits that we have always talked about.
I would like to address the two things that the inspector
general has talked about, ADS-B and DataComm as illustrative
examples. ADS-B capability is truly foundational. We are
delivering the ground stations, and that will complete that
aspect of the project. What the inspector general talked about
was how we ensure equipage for ADS-B In. Well, one of the
things that we thought important was we need to consult with
industry to understand the dynamics associated with that and
what they want to see. So we convened an aviation rulemaking
committee to provide advice to us and to raise issues that they
want to make sure that we take account of before we were to
issue a mandate. That is something that we are carefully
evaluating.
As I talked about earlier, these are necessary consultative
steps; it takes time but gets us to a better outcome. Because
what I don't want to have on the back end is a big fight about
whether we have got it right. We want to get it right the first
time. And that ultimately enables us to ensure expeditious
deployment when the time comes.
On DataComm, this is one that is at a very critical point.
There are three factors that affect it. One is the capabilities
that will be deployed as a result of DataComm. The second is
ensuring that we have the highest level of coordination with
our European counterparts who are looking to deploy a similar
technology. We want to ensure interoperability and consistency
across the Atlantic. Working with them on standards and on
calendars is extremely important.
And the final point is funding. DataComm is a program that
is just getting underway. And as the inspector general pointed
out, it is a game changer, it is one that really does cause
significant operational benefit, but given where it is in its
planning cycle and our funding choices, that is one that does
very much concern me in terms of its voidability.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. I have further questions, I will
wait for the third round, I see some other Members have
returned.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to follow up
a little bit. Mr. Huerta, when we were talking about successes
earlier, you brought up the ADS system and it being a success
of NextGen. And yet when I look at your testimony, where you
highlight it, you talk about UPS being able to save some fuel,
you talk about Jet Blue being able to save 100 miles, it
doesn't sound like a great success story. In fact, when I talk
to many of the people in the industry, their comment is that
ADS, for all practical reasons, is not being used. How would
you comment on that?
Mr. Huerta. Well, what it enables is the use of
performance-based navigation.
Mr. Meadows. I know it enables that, but is it being used?
Mr. Huerta. That is what they want and that is what the
metroplex program is focused on delivering.
Mr. Meadows. I understand that is what it is focused on. Is
it being used?
Mr. Huerta. It is.
Mr. Meadows. Across the industry. So I went out to all the
stakeholders, the majority of them would say, this is a great
success, this is--we are spending $40 billion worth to
implement it and use it, is it being used that way?
Mr. Huerta. I think if we worked through particular
metropolitan areas they would acknowledge that they are seeing
benefit. I talked about Atlanta, how we are able to increase
departure rates at Atlanta, I talked about north Texas, how we
are able to deconflict----
Mr. Meadows. But that wasn't in your testimony, but you are
saying that is a direct success of ADS.
Mr. Huerta. Yes, yes.
Mr. Meadows. OK. So if I called the Uniteds and all of
them, they would agree with you that Delta, that this is a
great success and they would be applauding you on this.
Mr. Huerta. They would agree that what we have been able to
deliver as a result of technology is more performance-based
navigation procedures. Now they still want more, and they are
not completing where they want to be, but they would say that
yes, they do benefit in particular programs.
Mr. Meadows. So how do we measure success? I am all about
results and not spending this. And earlier we talked about
success, the IG has been very detailed and perhaps some would
say critical in terms of where we have been with this. At what
matrix do we look at, since most of the stakeholders are saying
that we haven't really adopted ADS, you have put in--it gets
back to what Mr. Williams said, he is using a flip phone. I can
use a Smartphone if all I am doing is making phone calls, it
doesn't do me any good, and that is what it sounds like, we
have a lot of technology out there that is not really being
implemented across your agency or used fully, would you agree
with that?
Mr. Huerta. I would agree with the point that as you deploy
technology, there is a period of time where utilization needs
to catch up with it; that is true for any technological
revolution.
Mr. Meadows. Sure.
Mr. Huerta. And that our focus needs to be on how to ensure
that users are taking advantage of technology that is already
deployed.
Mr. Meadows. So how do you ensure that, because to date, we
haven't really assured that, so how would you----
Mr. Huerta. We are. That is entirely what our focus on
performance-based navigation is all about. Now we have put on
our Web site, and we have made available specific metrics that
measure how we actually meet the business objectives that the
users have associated with the deployment of these.
Mr. Meadows. So who puts forth the grade? I mean, you put
it on a Web site, how are we meeting it, who grades you out?
Mr. Huerta. Ultimately it only works if it is delivery and
benefit to the users and I understand that. And I understand
that we have to continue to focus on what it is that they
require for the delivery of the capabilities that they want, we
get that. Last summer there was a lot of discussion around a
particular runway configuration in Chicago, so we focused in on
what we could do to eliminate conflicts through the use of PBN,
and we have been successful in doing that. Before that, there
was a lot of concern about what could be done to increase
capacity in Atlanta. That is what led to that 10-percent
increase in departures. We need to be responsive.
Mr. Meadows. I am running out of time, so if you can answer
this last question for me, out of the industry, out of the
stakeholders, what percentage of the stakeholders are you using
ADS and really seeing a significant advantage out of that, what
percentage of the stakeholders are using it?
Mr. Huerta. I think a better way for us to respond to that
is what percentage of time or procedures actually being used in
particular metropolitan areas, and we can get you some
information on that.
Mr. Meadows. Well, I would like the answer to the other
question I asked you too, what percentage of stakeholders? And
with that, I thank the chairman and I yield back.
Mr. LoBiondo. Ms. Johnson.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. I would just like to ask
if I can depend on your department to have a briefing with my
office as it relates to Mesquite Airport.
Mr. Huerta. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Scovel, do you think that ADS-B is being
widely used now?
Mr. Scovel. No, I don't think it is being widely used now.
In some locations, sure, such as over the Gulf of Mexico,
Alaska, Philadelphia, and Memphis areas where demonstration
projects are in place. Elsewhere, it is not widely used. And as
far as being an enabler requirement for using PBN, performance-
based navigation in specific metropolitan areas, our review of
the FAA data shows that it is not either.
For instance, our statement notes that in three major
metropolitan areas where certain RNP procedures are in place,
Chicago, New York, and right here in Washington, only 3 percent
of the eligible flights are able to use those RNP procedures.
The sticking block in most instances is not with the
controllers themselves or their outlook but their training and
their ability to manage those advanced procedures.
They don't have the tools, they don't have the revised
handbook, they don't have the new policies, and they haven't
had the necessary training. It is entirely understandable and
proper that they should decline to grant authorization to
aircraft that request to use RNP under those circumstances. But
if we don't have the ultimate enablers for the controllers at
this point and their level of training, then they won't get
that user and that aircraft across the goal line.
Mr. LoBiondo. Do you want to comment?
Mr. Huerta. What I would add is which why we are so focused
on dealing with how we make this operational in focusing on the
controller handbook, focusing on working with all of the
stakeholders, and ensuring that a procedure is not published. I
mean, as we--when we deploy a new procedure, what we have to
focus on in very granular terms is who wants to use it, who is
able to use it, and how does it mix with other traffic in that
area. And we can only do that, not in a big global training
session, but by working with specific work groups, in specific
metropolitan areas to really focus on very precise procedures,
and how do we ensure that they get used. That is what the
metroplex initiative is all about.
And while people may be critical that it doesn't take time,
I think it is important not to lose sight of the fact that we
have invested significantly in trying to tackle that specific
problem, and we are seeing benefit as a result of it.
Mr. LoBiondo. Really, I think this has been very good and
very helpful for us to sort of understand a little bit better.
Trying to be fair, from a timeframe, do you think we would have
additional positive news 3 months, 6 months a year? I mean,
what do you think it will take to get to another level here,
Mr. Huerta?
Mr. Huerta. The thing that I am most concerned about is the
fiscal uncertainty between now and going into the next fiscal
year. Here is why. We have spent a lot of time talking about
delivering benefits and ensuring users have that. And you have
heard from me that the way we ensure that we are able to
deliver benefit is through very intensive, collaborative
processes with industry, with controllers and with the agency
in very granular terms about ensuring that we are able to take
advantage of the technology that we are deploying.
That costs money, and that is something that is--has been
for me--a very high priority with how we use or operate and our
F&E resources. As we look at an uncertain fiscal climate, it
presents us with a choice that we don't like which is, do we
retreat to a base operation and not try to do new things, or do
we continue to stay the course on deploying of these new
advanced technologies so we can deliver the very benefits that
we all say that we want to deliver? And as I look at where we
are in the balance of this fiscal year and the uncertainty we
face going into next year, we do have to resolve that question.
Mr. LoBiondo. Thank you. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. Inspector General Scovel, in your
written testimony, you stated the FAA hadn't yet made a key
design decision regarding how much responsibility for tracking
aircraft will be delegated to pilots versus the duties that
would remain for air traffic controllers. Could you explain why
that is a key decision?
Mr. Scovel. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. Yes, it is a key
decision because heretofore, pilots haven't had that type of
responsibility. It has rested with controllers on the ground.
For pilots to undertake that, of course their employers will
have to agree, they will have to be trained, the aircraft will
have to be equipped, controllers will have to change their
outlook from one of air traffic control to air traffic
management. That really is a revolutionary step.
Right now it appears to us that until ADS-B is mandated,
and those requirements specified, it is very much an open
question as to whether that delegation of responsibility to the
cockpit is going to take place.
Mr. Larsen. Administrator Huerta, do you care to respond?
Do you still see this happening?
Mr. Huerta. I do see it happening but I differ with the
inspector general that there is a magic day where a decision is
made and everything changes. The way I would characterize it is
that as we deploy technology, we need to work through
respective responsibilities of users of the system in terms of
what they actually mean.
NextGen, by definition, is a transformation from a command
and control environment, as the inspector general pointed out,
to a shared responsibility for air traffic management. But how
we deploy that is what we need to discuss. And that is
something that is not a black and white, we decide that one day
and move forward; that is an operational discussion of actually
how do we make that real in specific congested airspace.
Mr. Larsen. Inspector General Scovel, with regards to the
design decision on the number and locations of air traffic
facilities needed to support NextGen as a key decision, can you
layout why the IG says that is a key decision?
Mr. Scovel. Number and design of facilities?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Scovel. It is a key decision because if the full
potential of all of NextGen's programs are to be realized, it
might be possible for the current configuration of the NAS to
be very radically different from today in terms of the number
of facilities, their location and the workforce that is
required to staff them.
As the Administrator has pointed out, that is a continuing
discussion that needs to take place. Both the agency and the
committee, the full Congress, need to understand what the
possibilities are in that area, and then make a difficult
policy decision as to whether to embark in that direction.
After all, in the final analysis it is jobs, and we are also
talking about Federal presence in areas across the entire
country, north, south, east, west. The will of the Congress
will be paramount in that area, but it is not a decision that
can rest exclusively with the agency or with the industry. We
acknowledge that difficult policy matter and continuing
discussions have to take place.
Mr. Larsen. Administrator Huerta, any additional comment on
that.
Mr. Huerta. I agree.
Mr. Larsen. I have a question from a member not on the
committee, I want to ask it, for Administrator Huerta, it does
deal, if the chairman will indulge me with Asiana flight 214
about testing of employees of foreign carriers and whether or
not they should be required to undergo mandatory drug and
alcohol testing following a crash in the U.S., we require that
for domestic pilots or domestic carriers, but are not able
apparently to require of foreign pilots of foreign carriers.
Does the FAA have a position on changing that?
Mr. Huerta. Sure, as you know the FAA does require U.S.
operators to conduct drug testing of pilots following
accidents. And you also pointed out that FAA regulations do not
apply to foreign pilots or foreign airlines. In order to do
that, we would need to undertake a rulemaking, but I want to
step back for a minute and talk about the broader global
context in which this operates.
Changes to international standards on post accident drug
and alcohol testing are most likely to occur if there is
multilateral support for many countries. And the forum through
which that is done is the International Civil Aviation
Organization. ICAO standards do not presently require that
member States establish biochemical testing programs to detect
or to deter inappropriate drug or actual use. However, what
they have is something called a recommended practice. And the
recommended practice states that ICAO member States shall
ensure as far as practicable that all license holders who
engage in any kind of problematic use of substances are
identified and removed from their safety critical functions.
We, the U.S. Government, believe that the global aviation
community would greatly benefit from the development of clearer
ICAO standards in that regard and would be supportive of those
efforts. And we believe that it is appropriate to work that in
a multilateral context. I would caution against unilateral
regulatory action on the part of the U.S., because we have to
consider the implication of other States taking unilateral
actions that would affect our crews and our carriers in their
respective countries. So we would push to deal with this in the
international setting through ICAO.
Mr. Larsen. I understand. And finally, my last question is
I had asked in my opening statement about the letter I sent to
you all about metroplex--sending out metroplex initiatives
because of sequestration and was looking forward to a formal
response.
Mr. Huerta. I will be providing you a formal response
shortly in writing, but I'd like to highlight some of the
things I will be talking about in that. The collaborative part
of the metroplex program was stood down in mid-April as a
result of sequestration. These are the collaborative report
groups we have for air traffic controllers. We anticipated
needing to return controllers to their home facilities in order
to move air traffic as a result of reduced hours.
We approved the restart of these projects after we received
the one-time authority to enable us to cancel the furlough. We
have designated funding operations facilities engineering
activities in the affected en routes in terminal air traffic
control facilities in order to enable these projects to move
forward.
We are still assessing what the long-term impact of that is
on schedule because of necessity. We need now to reassemble
teams, get caught up in terms of work that was underway in
order to enable us to take this high-priority program and get
it back to where it needs to be, but yes, we did have to reduce
those activities as a result of the sequester.
Mr. Larsen. Under a CR environment, I assume that we
continue under a, what I would put long odds on, under regular
order environment where we actually pass all the bills,
appropriations bills by October 1st that would continue, but
under a sequestration environment, you would have to return to
make a decision on whether to continue those?
Mr. Huerta. Absolutely. Because under a CR environment with
sequester we would see a very significant reduction to our
operating budget, and that is how we fund this.
Mr. Larsen. And that is how you fund that. Yeah, good, all
right. Thank you very much, thank you.
Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Huerta, Mr. Scovel, we thank you very
much. This has been very helpful. I hope we can continue to
work together to try to see future progress and with that the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]