Segment 2 Of 4     Previous Hearing Segment(1)   Next Hearing Segment(3)

SPEAKERS       CONTENTS       INSERTS    
 Page 21       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
THE FINANCIAL COMMITMENT NEEDED TO ENHANCE THE SAFETY OF OUR AIRPORTS AND AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS

Thursday, February 4, 1999
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, D.C.

    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:17 a.m., in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Mr. DUNCAN. First of all, I want to go ahead and call the hearing to order, and I want to apologize. We have held a hundred and something hearings I guess in the four years I have been chairman, and I have always tried to start these hearings on this subcommittee exactly on time. This is the first one where we have started late.
    But I went to the National Prayer Breakfast, and it actually ran a little bit over. In fact, I think it might just now be ending, and I got here as quickly as I could.
    I first want to welcome everyone for the first subcommittee hearing of the 106th Congress, and I also want to welcome the new members of the Aviation Subcommittee, both the Republicans and the Democrats. And the same way as our full committee, I think now this has perhaps now become the largest subcommittee in the entire Congress.
    In addition, I want to welcome my friend, Congressman Sweeney, who is the new Vice Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, and say also that in part the growth of the subcommittee reflects the many important issues we will be facing in the Congress this year.
    And I might add that I have always had a really wonderful relationship with the Ranking Member of this subcommittee, Mr. Lipinski, and the Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, who for the new members I should say we have always, even on our side, have always referred to Mr. Oberstar as Mr. Aviation. He chaired this subcommittee for several years and worked on the staff of the committee before he came to Congress, and I know there is no one in the entire Congress in my opinion who knows more about aviation issues than Mr. Oberstar.
 Page 22       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    As everyone knows, the chairman of our full committee, Chairman Shuster, who has done such a great job in leading this committee, designated this year as the Year of Aviation. So I think most people in the aviation community are very excited about the prospects for this year and are very, very hopeful about the things that we may be able to accomplish.
    Last year, under the strong leadership of Chairman Shuster and Mr. Oberstar, we were successful in passing a really historic highway bill, commonly referred to as TEA–21; and, as everyone knows, that bill allowed the highway taxes collected to be actually spent on highway programs.
    In this Congress, this committee has one of its main goals the freeing up of the Aviation Trust Fund. Aviation users have been paying aviation taxes into the Aviation Trust Fund for years. However, only a portion of these taxes have been spent for aviation purposes. Currently, there is over $8 billion in this trust fund. That money can't be spent because of current budget rules.
    I think the balance in the airport and airways trust fund is being used to offset spending in other non-aviation programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, if spending levels are held constant, the Aviation Trust Fund uncommitted balance could grow to as much as $60 billion in the next 10 years.
    The FAA's overall budget has been increasing over the last few years. It received the budget for 1999 which was a 6 percent increase from 1998. Most of that increase was in the operations account and for the airport improvement program.
    Even though the FAA budget and specifically the AIP program has experienced increases over the last few years, the General Accounting Office has repeatedly shown that airport needs are greater, much greater than their resources. And, of course, all of us know, and very happily know, that 615 million passengers flew commercial airplanes in this country last year for the first time ever without a single fatality on a commercial airliner. This year that figure is supposed to go up to around 660 million and within just a few years up to over a billion passengers a year. And so the needs are great.
 Page 23       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    It is politically impossible, I suppose, to build a new airport, but we will have to expand and improve many airports if we are going to meet the great and fast-growing needs of both air passenger traffic and air cargo traffic, which is also shooting way up.
    There are many programs that offer us great promise for the future. One program that comes to mind is the FAA's free flight initiative. Once in place, this program will accommodate the requests of the airlines for specific flight paths, saving a great deal of time and, of course, potentially great amounts of money.
    But before some of the user benefit programs can be implemented, the FAA simply needs to upgrade its equipment. Last year, the FAA experienced 101 significant system outages, meaning air traffic controllers lost some or all of their primary systems for more than 10 minutes.
    Today we are holding the first in a series of hearings to discuss the benefits to aviation if the committee is successful in freeing the money in the Aviation Trust Fund. The witnesses we will have today will discuss funding needed for safety programs.
    I am very pleased to say that last year there was not a single life lost. That is something that we continue to need to work on as hard as we possibly can. And I think safety, particularly under Mr. Oberstar, safety was the number one goal, far surpassing anything else that this committee dealt with; and we need to continue that great work that has been done in the past.
    Witnesses today will discuss various programs that we can invest in to reduce the risks of flying. The subcommittee will also hold hearings on February 10 and 11 to discuss additional aspects of our FAA reauthorization.
    And I can tell you that we are going to continue holding a very large number of hearings. I think in at least three out of the four years that I have had the privilege of chairing this subcommittee, we have held more hearings than any other subcommittee in the Congress. I think we are going to have another busy session.
 Page 24       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    And at this time I would like to yield to the very distinguished Ranking Member of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. I think Mr. Lampson will have a brief statement first.
    Mr. DUNCAN. If that is the way you prefer, we will go first with Mr. Lampson. Mr. Lampson, we are certainly pleased to have you here.
    Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    It is nice to join the committee, my first one where I have the opportunity to sit up here in Mr. Lipinski's place. I look forward to hearing from this excellent group of witnesses today.
    Unlocking the trust fund is critical to the future safety, efficiency and security of the aviation system. Without changes, the trust fund balance will grow tremendously. We owe it to the passengers to unlock this trust fund. They pay ticket taxes, and they deserve to have this money support aviation.
    I look forward to working with Chairman Shuster, Chairman Duncan, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Oberstar, on these very important initiatives. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Lampson.
    We will go next to the new vice chairman, Mr. Sweeney.
    Mr. SWEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great pleasure and privilege to be here.
    We face many challenges this congressional session, and I think today signifies the beginning of our efforts to tackle another great challenge. I am excited and enthusiastic and look forward to working with you and Mr. Oberstar and our colleagues throughout and making sure that we continue to protect the safety and provide good air traffic quality for the citizens of our nation. So I thank you for being here.
 Page 25       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Oberstar?
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thank you for your kind words at the opening of the session. You in your turn as chair of this committee have brought great distinction to its endeavors and have brought great integrity that you possess and also demonstrated in public life to the field of aviation, making your own mark, a positive and constructive one, over these past four years and the next two. And, as you said, Chairman Schuster has designated this to be the Year of Aviation as last year was the Year of Surface Transportation.
    Together we aim to do with the Aviation Trust Fund what I think we successfully did with the Highway Trust Fund, to take it off budget within the budget with fire walls guaranteeing annual revenue stream that will be reassuring to highway planners, engineers, contractors and, most importantly, drivers that our highway system will be replaced, maintained and improved, and we must do the same for aviation.
    We will over the next three weeks have very intensive hearings. This is only the first, but it is a constructive beginning, narrowly focused in each case of these hearings so that we can get the maximum contribution from the witnesses in depth and substantively, which is a hallmark of your chairmanship, Mr. Chairman.
    Those great marks of progress that you cited—no fatalities last year, 615 million passengers—are wonderful marks of progress. They show growth and strength in our aviation system. They show improvements in aviation safety. But we cannot rest on our laurels. There are always in transportation dark clouds hanging over the horizon, clouds of concern.
    That 615 million some passengers is not an insignificant number. It is half of all the air travel in the entire world. That is a measure of the power of the U.S. aviation system. We are not just the biggest. We are bigger than anything else combined in the world. We have a responsibility to be the leader at safety and security and airport capacity, construction and ease of access for passengers to their air travel.
 Page 26       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    But the dark clouds that I refer to are those of congestion. In 1989, O'Hare Airport passed a milestone. In that year they logged a hundred thousand hours of delay, the most of any airport in the United States or in the world. Right behind it was Atlanta. Behind that was Denver, closing in each on a hundred thousand hours of delay. And there were 21 airports throughout this country experiencing delays of 20 to 50,000 hours of delay a year.
    With projections, that number would grow if we didn't take action. Indeed, in 1990, with the participation of my good friend, our former colleague, Bill Clinger, who was the ranking Republican of the committee, we formed a partnership, as we had done on numerous issues in the past, mobilized the aviation community, brought the Office of Management and Budget, the House Appropriations Committee and the Ways and Means Committee together to craft a plan to invest the growing surplus in the Aviation Trust Fund in our Nation's hardside aviation system, expanding runways, building new airports and improving taxiways and parking aprons and providing funding for a very important initiative that then Secretary of Transportation Sam Skinner and the airports of this country were actively supporting, a passenger facility charge to supplement the Aviation Trust Fund monies.
    We accomplished all of that in one piece of legislation. We freed up the trust fund. Money began to flow. The Office of Management and Budget lived up to its commitments. The Appropriations Committee lived up to their commitments. We removed the trigger mechanism that I won't go into the details of it but that held back large sums of money from the aviation system.
    And it worked for 2 years. Then we had a budget agreement that cut back on spending and spending caps, and we had a change of administration. And then this Clinton administration came in, and they were going to cut the budget, and so the aviation budget began to look like the Russian economy. Better than last year, not as good as next year.
    This kind of regressive practice was—has resulted in reducing AIP and F&E funding by $800 million from our 1990 agreement. If we continue at the current pace, we will have disinvested from 50 percent of capital investment representing 50 percent of the FAA budget to less than 40 percent, and it will go down further if we continue this disinvestment.
 Page 27       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Meanwhile, the needs grow—$3 billion a year in F&E; $3 billion or more a year in runway, taxiway improvements.
    All of those shortfalls translate directly into delays for airlines, costs for the airlines, costs for passengers that Delta airlines estimated for that carrier alone resulted in $350 million a year in lost revenue due to airport delays.
    Our aviation system is a jewel. It is the largest, the finest in the world.
    I recently traveled to China on a mission for the State Department on aviation. That country is investing $100 billion building six new airports, modernizing 35 others to upgrade them to meet U.S. FAA standards. Hong Kong just completed a $25 billion airport in the ocean. Japan at Kansai, just off Osaka, has completed a $15 billion airport in the ocean and planning another $10 billion runway to accompany the already completed facility.
    Ninety percent of all the 747s Boeing ever built operate in the Pacific Rim. That is where the growth in aviation is taking place. If we expect to reach the enormous growth potential of the Pacific Rim from the continental United States, then we have to have 12,000 foot runways. We have to have the ability to operate under all weather conditions with runways that are fully separated to the more than 5,000 feet that is the minimum for all weather conditions set by the FAA.
    As we proceed through these hearings and into the crafting of the bill of the aviation year, you have to keep in mind the three Cs of aviation: competition, capacity and convenience for the traveling public. We have to recognize that the available revenues coming into the Aviation Trust Fund are not enough to meet those needs, that the supplemental passenger facility charge is going to have to be increased but only after we have looked at a plan that the airports, the FAA together with this committee will craft to meet those needs of competition, capacity and convenience for the traveling public.
 Page 28       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    I was pleased to see recently the conservative activist Paul Weyrich support a passenger facility charge, saying lifting the cap on PFCs is good public policy. It places decision making directly in the hands of local airport authorities with the corresponding benefit to the local community and the traveling public. The issue of PFC has been misconstrued, misunderstood. Paul Weyrich, ironically, helps us to clear up the cloud that this is not a tax, that this is removing a prohibition on local airport authorities from imposing charges and directing those funds for very targeted and specific purposes.
    In addition to the hardside capacity requirements of our airports, we have to address the modernization of the air traffic control system; and this committee has been very vigilant over the years under your chairmanship, Chairman Duncan, of watching over this modernization.
    It is very complex, very difficult. I won't attempt to address it at this point. I just want to say it is not simple. This air traffic control system is far more complex than the space program that gets far more attention. Every day that air traffic control system manages the lives of 2 million of our fellow citizens in the air, 23 million aircraft movements a year handled by the enroute system, 57 million operations handled by towers and TRACONs across this country. And it is real time. Right now. It is not information retrieval. It is real time action that we have to deal with.
    I look forward to receiving the administration's proposals. They are now crafting them, but I must say right at the outset I am highly skeptical of these performance-based organization ideas. The last wacky idea they came up with was to corporatize the air traffic control system and turn it over to the airlines. We buried that idea on a bipartisan basis, and I hope they don't come back with it. And the rest of their performance-based ideas we will take a look at them but I must say with great askance.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the leadership you have demonstrated for proceeding with these hearings and giving me these few minutes of extra time.
 Page 29       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Oberstar. You always add an awful lot.
    Dr. Ehlers.
    Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to keep my comments brief so we can get into the hearing.
    The two major points that I would like to make—first of all, I have been concerned long before I became a congressman about the actions taken in 1967 to take the trust funds off budget to minimize the cost of the Vietnam War. That action was taken by President Johnson with the complicity of the Congress. Ever since then I don't believe we have had a true budget. And even today when we are talking about healthy surpluses we are kidding ourselves because the surplus looks as large as it is simply because we are taking more money into the trust funds than we are spending.
    I believe it is essential that we remove the airport trust fund from the budget just as we removed the surface transportation trust fund from the budget last year. Also, I think we should remove the Social Security Trust Fund and other trust funds from the budget as well so we will have some honest budget accounting, but that is going to be an even bigger task, and I think I would possibly be willing to settle for the Aviation Trust Fund in this Congress.
    But it is clear that we have to do that. Our airports have serious needs. Our air traffic system has serious needs. And yet we continue to compile up money there and don't spend it as we should.
    The second point I would make is in terms of the operation of the FAA and the entire regulatory atmosphere. I think we have to become much more efficient. I believe that government regulations were quite successful in nearly killing the railroad system. And with that practice behind us, we can probably kill the air traffic system without too much trouble. I believe we have to guard against that, and we have to develop the flexibility for the FAA that we need to respond to a dynamic, growing airline industry.
 Page 30       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    We are talking very serious business here. These are big enterprises. Safety is a major factor. We have done a good job, but the question is at what cost and how efficiently. And I believe it is absolutely essential that, as we reauthorize the FAA, that we take a very hard look at precisely what regulations are needed, what type of administrative structure is needed within the FAA to carry this out, how can we simplify it, streamline it and perhaps even reduce the congressional role in it in cases where we are the impediment rather than the bureaucracy. And let's work together with the FAA, who currently has a very fine administrator, work with the staff, work with the industry, try to develop a system that will work and that will be beneficial rather than a hindrance to this industry.
    Thank you.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Congressman Ehlers, for a very fine and accurate statement today and yesterday on the floor in regard to our FAA extension bill yesterday.
    Ms. Johnson?
    Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having these hearings.
    Of course, flight concerns are a major concern of the general public. Nobody wants to get on a plane and feel that it is not going to be the safest carrier ever because they have no control whatsoever.
    I am interested today in trying to find out what improvements we need with our control systems. We had no accidents in 1998. I would like to see that repeated, but I would also like to see what we need to do to keep that maintained. I did hear about a number of flights being lost for 30 seconds or five seconds or 10 seconds, whatever, and in my own mind attribute to that some of our air traffic control tower technology perhaps.
    We also have some very aging aircraft. Sometime during the course of these hearings, I would like to have some response on some of that.
 Page 31       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    But I do thank you for the hearings. I think they are very important. This is a very important year for aviation, and I look forward to hearing the witnesses. Thank you.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
    Mr. LoBiondo.
    Mr. LOBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to join this committee, look forward to working with you and all members on the committee to move forward with our agenda.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Norton.
    Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate your getting such an early start with this committee.
    I am happy to be on the committee. I have been on the full committee for some time. This is my first time on the subcommittee. I am very concerned and interested in the myriad of problems that you have outlined and that Mr. Oberstar has indicated.
    I particularly identify with his remarks concerning the importance of this industry to our economy and to its future directions. We all understand this when it comes to telecommunications. But I think we have lost sight of what this industry means as we move toward a different century and a different way of looking at economic problems and at our own economy.
    I am very concerned about the shortfall that Mr. Oberstar discussed and do want to indicate that in this region it is worse than a shortfall because National and Dulles Airports are not receiving any improvement funds and PFC funds because of an attachment from the Senate regarding additional appointees. There is a dispute that began here that has become national about additional slots.
    This is a very unfortunate place for it to begin because National Airport in particular is arguably the most important airport in the United States, if my colleagues will forgive me. In any case, it is certainly one of the oldest. It has only just begun to bring itself into the 20th century. It is nowhere near the 21st. It is an airport where pilots will tell you, and I hope I am here—I have got to go and come back to this hearing—is one that requires very special attention when landing. And so to have anything that keeps this airport and Dulles Airport, which is rapidly expanding because of an increase in traffic there, from doing what they have to do to become safe for passengers is very troubling indeed.
 Page 32       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    I believe the committee has its work cut out for them. The whole notion of additional slots has just now become a national matter and no longer a Washington, D.C., matter, has brought Members of the House and the Senate all into the work of this subcommittee, and I hope and stand ready to do everything I can within this region to help us work out a sane, rational and amicable solution to that and other problems.
    I very much appreciate the opportunity to be on the committee, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton.
    Mr. Sherwood.
    Mr. SHERWOOD. Thank you very much. I am happy to be on the committee. I am very interested in airline safety, air traffic control.
    The district I represent had a very large amount of people on TWA 800, and I am introducing a bill about the death on the high seas today. Thank you.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
    Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. MCGOVERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I, too, am delighted to be on this subcommittee. I look forward to working with you on these very important funding and safety matters.
    I also want to say I appreciate your leadership in the past and your attention to the special concerns of small and medium-sized airports.
    I represent a district in Massachusetts which includes the second largest city in New England, Worcester, that has an airport that continues to struggle. And I do hope that we can try to find ways additionally in the coming months to help these struggling airports get the support that they need to try and find incentives so airlines will utilize these airports. I think it is not only important to the economic development of those cities, but I think it is important to the economic development of regions in this country.
 Page 33       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    So I thank you very much and look forward to working with you.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much. We are glad to have you, and I know you will find that your concern about the small and medium-sized airports is shared by many people on both sides of the aisle on this subcommittee.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. DUNCAN. And now we are very honored to have a very distinguished panel, several of whom have testified before us before. I don't know who holds the distinction for testifying the most before this committee, but I know Mr. Broderick will have to be in there close, I suppose.
    At any rate, we have as witnesses here for this hearing Mr. Charles Higgins, who is Vice President for Airplane Safety and Airworthiness of the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group; Mr. John O'Brien, who is the Director of the Engineering and Air Safety Department for the Air Line Pilots Association, International; Mr. Edward Wytkind, who is Executive Director of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO; Mr. Anthony J. Broderick, who is in aviation safety consulting; and Mr. Michael D. Fanfalone, who is President of the Professional Airways Systems Specialists.
    Gentlemen, we are pleased to have all of you here.

TESTIMONY OF CHARLES HIGGINS, VICE PRESIDENT, AIRPLANE SAFETY AND AIRWORTHINESS, BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP, THE BOEING COMPANY; JOHN O'BRIEN, DIRECTOR, ENGINEERING AND AIR SAFETY DEPARTMENT, AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL; EDWARD WYTKIND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO; ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, AVIATION SAFETY CONSULTANT,; AND MICHAEL D. FANFALONE, PRESIDENT, PROFESSIONAL AIRWAYS SYSTEMS SPECIALISTS
    
 Page 34       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
Mr. DUNCAN. We always follow the order in which the
witnesses are listed on the call of the hearing; and that
means, Mr. Higgins, you will go first, followed by
Mr. O'Brien. And so we will hear first from Mr. Higgins.

    Mr. HIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, ladies and gentlemen and members of the subcommittee.
    As Vice President for Airplane Safety and Airworthiness of the Commercial Airplane Group I am pleased to provide comments regarding commercial aviation system safety, our view of the important role the FAA plays in aviation system safety and the necessity for meeting the funding needs of the FAA, particularly the regulation and certification organization. Boeing has an unwaivering commitment to the safety of its products and the world's air transport system. The future of our business depends on keeping our products and the system safe.
    As our economy becomes more global and airline alliances become more prevalent, it makes less and less difference where an aviation accident occurs. If confidence in aviation is lost in one area of the world, it affects us all. American business and pleasure travelers can be found in cities on every continent. If an airplane is lost overseas, it most likely has travelers from many nations, including the United States.
    We cannot focus our efforts solely on the United States, and we must strive for a single worldwide level of aviation safety. The FAA and NTSB has to be well positioned as a leader in the international environment.
    I provide greater detail in my written submission, and I would like to stress the following key points:
    We must set our sights on a single worldwide level for commercial aviation system safety. There are three important FAA actions necessary to achieve this goal.
 Page 35       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    First, in the near term, the FAA should increase cooperation on a bilateral and regional basis to help countries and regions develop needed oversight and infrastructure.
    In the current environment, the demand for FAA aid in foreign countries is exceeding the supply of qualified specialists. Thus, the FAA cannot fully support important programs that help foreign authorities become self-sufficient, which will lead to improved safety of the entire aviation system. This increasing demand for FAA resources has come from the recognition that many countries' aviation infrastructure does not meet the minimum ICAO standards. If we invest today to help make foreign authorities self-sufficient, the resource demand on the FAA in the future will be diminished.
    Second, as we move to the future, the FAA should increase its presence in international arenas and collaborate more with the JAA and ICAO to create one set of safety requirements.
    As you know, the Joint Aviation Authorities, is the European equivalent of the FAA, and ICAO is the international body that sets minimum standards for regulations by conventions throughout the world.
    Let me be clear that I am not talking about harmonizing all safety regulations but establishing agreement on a common set of safety performance requirements for the worldwide aviation system. The globalization of the air transport industry has focused a need for a worldwide forum for establishing safety performance requirements. The FAA and JAA have nearly completed this process of developing a single set of safety requirements for airplane design which we as the manufacturer participated in. The FAA, JAA and ICAO need to build upon this effort and increase the collaboration, focusing more on operations and the development of infrastructure.
    These focus areas offer the greatest leverage for improving the safety of the system on a worldwide basis. Again, investment in additional resources now on the part of the FAA will pay dividends for all of us in the future.
 Page 36       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Finally, the FAA should take the lead in coordinating development of international safety strategies to speed up implementation of safety enhancements around the world.
    We applaud the development of the FAA Safer Skies Agenda under the leadership of Administrator Garvey. In our view, the benefits for the focused agenda will be the development of wide industry and government support for the safety programs that follow. This consensus will speed implementation of safety programs around the world.
    While the United States is developing safety initiatives such as Safer Skies, the JAA is developing the Joint Safety Strategy Initiatives and ICAO is developing the Global Aviation Safety Plan.
    All three safety programs are linked through participation in the Commercial Aviation Safety Team which meets on a regular basis here in Washington. This linkage provides a tremendous opportunity for the FAA to significantly increase the cooperation between the three major safety agencies throughout the world. Increased collaboration will better utilize scarce resources and speed up implementation of needed safety improvements on a global basis. This vital leadership requires an increase in FAA resources now and in the near future.
    For the FAA to accomplish these actions, the Congress should provide the necessary resources to the FAA to increase their international safety leadership while ensuring their ability to meet their existing responsibilities.
    The FAA has broad responsibilities well beyond what I have discussed briefly here. Continued funding in all areas is extremely important. What I have tried to focus on here are those few items that we, as a manufacturer, feel will lead to improvements in the safety level of the global aviation system.
    The Boeing Company would like to thank the committee for its past efforts to fully fund the FAA. The success of our industry is dependent upon a strong, well-funded FAA. The FAA's ability to establish partnerships with other civil aviation authorities, develop safety agendas and programs and establish international safety requirements needs an investment above what is needed to manage the FAA's daily business.
 Page 37       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    We appreciate the committee's intent to ensure revenues from the aviation users are used for aviation purposes while maintaining a robust general fund contribution.
    Aviation is extremely important to the U.S. and global economy. In the United States, aviation is the dominant inter-city mode of transportation for passengers and goods that must be transported quickly and efficiently. Aviation employs hundreds of thousands of people and thousands more in aviation support industries. Even industry segments that are seemingly unrelated depend on a safe and efficient aviation system. Therefore, the Boeing Company believes the FAA should continue to receive a portion of its funding from the general fund to cover the cost of those FAA programs that are not services. Examples of these costs include regulation and certification as these activities are consistent with the government's traditional role of providing for the general welfare of the public and are clearly in the broad public interest.
    Thank you very much.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Higgins. Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. O'BRIEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, sir, and to members of the committee.
    I am John O'Brien, Director of the Engineering and Air Safety Department for the Air Line Pilots Association. With me is Captain Paul McCarthy, a Delta pilot.
    Effective March 1, Captain McCarthy will become the leader of our pilot volunteer structure. That structure is made up of 800 pilots who work on many of the topics I will talk about today. In the days and months to come, I think Paul will become a familiar face with, if not the committee, the committee staff working on some of these issues.
    ALPA represents 53,000 pilots who fly for 53 airlines in the United States and Canada. We are eager to talk to you today on the financial commitments needed to enhance the safety of our airports and our air traffic control system.
 Page 38       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    From an ALPA perspective, this hearing is timely as our association has been engaged for the past several weeks in a very intense discussion with the FAA and others over innovative capacity enhancement procedures at our Nation's airports and the impact that these procedures have on aviation safety.
    The need for these procedures, capacity enhancement, points to a much larger problem—airports and runways that are stretched beyond their limits. This situation will only get worse as air traffic increases in the future.
    We have provided you with a statement detailing a number of suggested actions that, properly funded, we believe will enhance airport and ATC system safety. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, we submit that statement for the record; and, in the interest of time, I will touch upon a few topics that merit special attention.
    We continue to be alarmed at the rise in the number of runway incursions. Some 298 incursions were reported during the first 11 months of 1998—on average, one every 26 hours—and yet the FAA did not request funding for its Airport Surface Operations Safety Action Plan, the plan which would address runway incursions.
    It may be interesting to note also that, in our opinion, there are at least a dozen more events that should have been characterized as runway incursions, bringing the total to well over 300 for this year. We recommend that Congress earmark at least 3 million for this plan in the coming year.
    We testified last year before this committee on a runway incursion in Quincy, Illinois, that killed 13 people. Our testimony suggested strongly that FAA certification of small airports might have prevented that tragedy. Congress last fall proposed FAA issue an NPRM on small airport certification and agreed to authorize funding once the regulations went into effect so that airports could comply. We would urge you to press the FAA to go forward with this rule making and stand behind the commitment to authorize funding.
 Page 39       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Funding for technologies that will help ensure that the Nation's air space system can safely handle projected growth must be supported. Three ATC initiatives currently under way which depend heavily upon this kind of support include the first phase of the Free Flight program; the expanding use of datalink text messaging between pilots and controllers; and the evaluation of communication, navigation and surveillance technologies under the Safe Flight 21 program.
    We have a particular interest in the Safe Flight 21 program because it is the only program that takes individual technological improvements and combines them in a system concept and puts them into a real life environment. It is only then that we can see if the real human factors issues have been properly addressed through the development of these technologies.
    We applaud the subcommittee for its authorization of funding last year for the technology that very directly affects our pilots getting to and from their job sites and also improves security at airports within the airline. That is purchase and installation of the universal access system. The Aviation Security Advisory Committee has set up a plan to implement that system which has been field tested with good success. We would ask that funding specifically earmarked for the purchase and installation of the system be included in this year's bill.
    We have spoken before this committee previously on data collection programs that are critical to the FAA's development of the strategic plan for safety. As an example, such programs have recently provided substantiating data to install equipment at badly needed runway locations. It is only with this kind of data that we can support or justify on a prioritized basis installation of important and very critical safety equipment. To be effective, though, this data collection depends upon voluntary cooperation of both air carriers and flight crew members.
    We have said many times that it is essential for Congress to provide guidance to the FAA to ensure that this information is used only for its intended purpose, safety, and not for enforcement purposes. We would say that once again.
 Page 40       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    I said at the outset of my remarks that we are eager to talk about the financial commitments needed in these efforts, and I have said that because we are realists. Our technical experts can and have worked with the FAA, the industry and other agents to ensure that operations in and around airports are safe and efficient, but without adequate funding for proposed solutions, our hands are often tied.
    Without proper funding, we will continue to have to make do with Band-aid approaches that trade off safety for capacity; and it gives us an aviation system that simply won't be able to keep up with the overwhelming demands of the next century. We are long past due in making each and every dollar in the airport and airway trust fund available for its intended purpose. We strongly endorse the principle of spending these funds in aviation programs and projects that will both enhance capacity and protect safety.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Wytkind.

    Mr. WYTKIND. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you again for providing us this opportunity to appear on behalf of our 30 member unions who, of course, include the two other unions represented on this panel.
    Let me begin, if I could, by underscoring the point that has been emphasized very well by you Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Lampson and others, which is our entire aviation system does need full funding, consistent funding and long-term investment. That is why we are here today. Despite the likely political wrangling that will occur on this debate, I don't think there is much disagreement about the facts.
    By unlocking the trust funds, creating fire walls in the budget, however the final mechanism comes out, we can make the same commitment to aviation that this committee, this Congress and the country made to surface transportation. But let me just say that, while funding is very important to us and we support the effort of this committee, it is not the sole answer to the challenges that this country faces in the aviation sector.
 Page 41       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    In short, we must also support the interests and protect the rights of FAA workers. We must ensure that all Federal labor standards and protections apply throughout the aviation infrastructure program, including any programs that utilize innovative financing. And we must implement the myriad safety priorities that have been put forward by aviation workers and their unions for a number of years and which you personally, as Chairman, supported in the last Congress.
    These are our objectives, and we will judge the final bill based on whether it meets that straightforward agenda which we are confident it will.
    As most analyses have shown, aviation service demands are soaring. They continue to soar and will soar into the next century. The question is, are we ready to deal with that? We think the answer today is no. I think your comments, the comments by Mr. Oberstar, have very accurately described the kind of chronic underfunding that continues to plague the industry.
    The fact is that the current budget mechanism doesn't work. Every day employers and their customers are taxed on tickets purchased, gas consumed and cargo moved. The revenues are deposited in the fund, but the fund is not being spent down to support what it is supposed to support.
    Look at any area of the industry, and you will see that the current policy has not produced the kind of results we want. Runway construction and airport expansion is on hold. Outdated computer systems that require updating and investment in FAA employees, both training and hiring, has been cut or heavily stifled by this budget environment.
    I know this Congress, this committee in particular, is committed to finally unlocking these funds for what they are intended to be spent on. I must caution, however, as we rush to build and expand infrastructure, we cannot shortchange the operations budget of the FAA and the basic training and staffing that is supported by the account. We can, and in fact should, have the most up-to-date computers in the world, the best technology and the safest airports, but if we do not invest in the FAA personnel needs, the pace of improvement we believe will languish.
 Page 42       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Finally, Congress must use the FAA reauthorization process to adopt long-standing safety initiatives that frontline workers and their unions have advocated. I won't go into detail. We have submitted comprehensive testimony on this, but I will summarize a few points, including a few areas in last year's bill which we strongly supported, such as whistleblower protections for aviation workers, and reinstatement of Merit System Protection Board rights for FAA employees which you will hear more about a little later in the panel.
    We must compel the FAA to complete a rule making on collision avoidance systems and small airport certification. And as ALPA representative, Mr. O'Brien, said, we must authorize a universal access system.
    Other issues that weren't in last year's bill we will also advocate. Foreign repair stations is an issue we have been debating with the Congress for a number of years. We believe the current regulations that govern the certification of foreign aircraft repair stations open the door to potentially unsafe facilities. We join with Boeing in calling for a worldwide level of safety. That is what this issue is about, despite what its opponents would make the committee believe. It is about raising the level of safety worldwide to one single standard, and the FAA has always been the leader in that standard, and we strongly urge the Committee to help us address this issue.
    I also want to note that the FAA Administrator, Jane Garvey, is the first administrator since the regulations were changed in 1988 to acknowledge internally and publicly that it is time to address this issue, which is why we await anxiously for the release of a proposed regulation that we believe will revise the rules and hopefully deal with some of the concerns that we have raised.
    The problem of inadequate standards that govern staffing, training and equipment of airport rescue and firefighting is also an issue that we hope you will address. I have included draft legislation attached to my testimony that we believe will remedy this problem, and we hope that you will look at it and consider it for the legislation.
 Page 43       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Excessive carry-on bags continues to be a big problem. We join with the Association of Flight Attendants in their petition to the FAA to ensure a uniform rule that would limit the volume of carry-on bags. I urge the committee to use that petition as a guide to craft a legislative solution.
    I also want to note in his absence that we are very thankful for the leadership that Mr. Lipinski has played on this issue.
    In the Senate bill, Chairman John McCain included a provision that would allow for a $10,000 fine of passengers who interfere with the duties of a crew member. We hope the committee will look at that issue as well and include similar language to deal with this issue.
    We join with ALPA in asking you to consider more action on runway safety issues and in supporting a legislative provision, included last year, that would have required the FAA to address the issue. We hope it will be included in the legislation this year as well.
    Wildlife interference, as ALPA has led the charge on, is also an issue that we support action on and hope the committee will consider.
    To wrap up, so I don't exceed my time—I may not be invited back—our support for a fair and balanced funding mechanism for the FAA we believe is inseparable with our safety objectives. The aviation system is not going to improve unless it is fully funded, but it must be done so in a way that does not jeopardize the rights, safety and jobs of the private and public sector employees and of passengers.
    In the reauthorization of ISTEA, transportation labor worked very carefully with each member of this committee to ensure that the Nation's needs were met and that a sound bill could be passed and, yes, signed into law. We look forward to building on that enormous success called TEA–21 and accomplishing the same for our Nation's aviation system.
    Thank you very much.
 Page 44       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Wytkind.
    We have worked together on many of those things, but I can tell you one of the things you mentioned at the last is something I support very strongly and that is taking tougher, much tougher action of some sort against anyone who attacks a flight attendant or interferes with a crew member in some violent or obscene way.
Mr. Broderick?

    Mr. BRODERICK. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    The two single best financial commitments that can be made to improve the delivery of FAA's safety programs and services are to improve the stability and the predictability of FAA funding. Note that I did not ask that the Congress appropriate more funds at this time, only that they provide the FAA managers with something they don't have today: confidence in the funding available from year to year, and an ability to predict it. Anything that can be done to provide a more reliable source of funding, such as the committee's efforts to unlock the trust fund, is certainly welcome.
    Mr. Chairman, even today more than one-third of the way in this fiscal year, safety programs within the FAA are being forced to rearrange priorities and reallocate staffing to account for unanticipated funding cuts. We would never expect a business to run efficiently if the funding stream fluctuated widely, so why do we expect this of FAA managers?
    The biggest problems are, I believe, faced by those in FAA who operate the relatively small programs alongside the very large air traffic program within the large consolidated budget account which funds all of the FAA's operations, which is about $5.5 billion this year. Most of the Nation's safety, security and air traffic control programs and services are funded from this account, the large majority of which is needed to pay fixed expenses for salaries, utilities, telephone bills and the like.
 Page 45       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Now, given that perhaps 80 percent of this account is needed for fixed expenses, even a small reduction or unplanned expense of a few percent has a large negative effect on the remaining discretionary funds. If, for example, 3 percent of the budget is cut by appropriations action or needed for unplanned expenditures—an example of an unplanned expenditure is the signature last year of the new NATCA contract—a 3 percent cut has the effect of eliminating 15 percent of the discretionary funds available. Now, that is a very large management problem which inevitably impacts all safety, security and air traffic programs.
    Perennial losers in these budget adjustments are inspector training programs, essential travel, certification and other services that are particularly important for small businesses and the filling of staffing vacancies, resulting in inspector staff shortages.
    I am particularly concerned that inspector training programs not continue to suffer reductions, as the need for them continues to increase with relatively new staff and even more complex regulations and new technologies.
    Certification services, too, are going to suffer greatly; and a delay in certification of new or modified equipment slows down safety improvements.
    It is also true that unpredictability and instability in the FAA funding adversely affects other program accounts. When some in the industry questioned the viability of the WAAS program—that is the satellite navigation augmentation program—a few years ago, the result was the beginning of several years of reductions in that appropriation from the amount requested by the President. FAA managers, in an attempt to keep the delivery of WAAS services on schedule, generally absorbed these budget cuts by eliminating risk reduction efforts of the WAAS contractors and redefining the program so that the financial cuts were absorbed in the form of increased schedule risk.
    The cuts for 1999, coupled with a political environment strongly intolerant of any scheduled slippage in major programs, were the straws that broke the camel's back. What was likely a technical program slip of six to eight weeks was rebaselined, as they say, to project near zero program schedule risk. The six to eight-week delay, with an admittedly high risk of additional delay, was turned into a 14-month delay, with little risk of further delay. I don't think that is a good trade-off.
 Page 46       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    The programs and services of the Nation's air traffic control system and its security and safety regulatory programs are best served by providing FAA managers with stable and predictable sources of funding. Only then can we expect the excellence that they are capable of achieving and only then may we fairly hold them accountable for delivery of anything less.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Fanfalone.

    Mr. FANFALONE. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman.
    I am Michael Fanfalone, President of Professional Airways Systems Specialists. PASS represents more than 10,000 FAA system specialists, flight inspection pilots and aviation safety inspectors.
    The focus of today's hearing is on financing and safety, both of which are important to the members that we represent. PASS recognizes that adequate funding is essential in order for the FAA to achieve its mission of safe and secure air travel.
    We understand that this subcommittee is exploring ways to unlock the Aviation Trust Fund in the hopes of providing maximum funding for aviation programs. As you know, PASS has always supported more money for operations and facilities and equipments budgets.
    We believe that the FAA's current budget does not adequately reflect what is required to provide the services that the aviation community needs. Increasing the budget would be a good thing for the agency—as long as the funding plan provides adequate flexible funding for operations and F&E, does not diminish congressional oversight of transportation spending, and there is agency accountability built into the system.
    Flexible funding with increased agency accountability will go a long way toward improving the safety of the NAS.
    Today, our Airway Facilities workforce certifies, maintains and repairs the systems used to control air traffic. These systems are in use 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and our members keep them up and running, despite short staffing.
 Page 47       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    The insufficient staffing levels are having a direct impact on safety; and, right now, our workforce is staffed at only 66 percent of the FAA's own staffing standard. The FAA is now struggling to bring new equipment and systems on-line with a technical workforce that is seriously understaffed, despite the fact that the antiquated air traffic control systems are breaking down in record numbers, with as many as 4,000 pieces of equipment out of service every day.
    Additionally, implementing major new systems such as the DSR, STARS and WAAS will substantially increase the FAA's Systems Specialists' workload. Modernization will change our members' scope of responsibilities, moving more towards system oversight and software maintenance. Increasing the budget would allow the agency to make the investment needed to improve its quality of service and to rapidly modernize the NAS and its workforce.
    More funding is needed to train the AF workforce in an entirely new set of job skills that meet today's technologies. With modernization upon us, there is no longer time to fly a few people from each facility at a time to the FAA academy in Oklahoma City for training. PASS believes the answer lies, in part, in investing in on-site training that will teach employees how to certify, maintain and oversee new NAS components, with an emphasis on how these components are integrated into the entire NAS system.
    The AF workforce must acquire the skills necessary to certify and troubleshoot entire computer systems, and to do so effectively they must be trained in network management. In order to maintain a high level of safety, FAA system specialists, the agency experts, must oversee the operation, maintenance and integration of the entire NAS.
    PASS also represents approximately 3,100 aviation safety inspectors and support staff. Inspectors play a major role in the safety of air travel by developing and administering and enforcing regulations and standards.
    Increased funding would allow the FAA to hire more support staff for inspectors in the form of aviation safety assists and technicians. They provide support by writing up accident and enforcement investigation reports, answering Freedom of Information Act requests and interfacing with the public. This frees up the inspectors and allows them to spend more time on safety inspections, oversight and the enforcement of the regulations.
 Page 48       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Training and currency for inspectors is another area that has suffered due to a lack of funding. Inspectors need recurrent training to stay abreast of the technology used by the aviation industry. Inspectors who are not trained on the latest technologies are unable to properly perform inspections. Thus, they cannot perform adequate safety oversight.
    One program designed to keep all inspectors current and proficient is now on the chopping block and is called Event-Based Currency. It offers practice on a quarterly basis in procedures like runway approaches, instrument flight rules, emergency procedures and other critical aviation practices. Funding for this program has been cut so drastically that, in only the second quarter of this fiscal year, our operations inspectors in the Miami office have been forced to stop flying. This means that these inspectors will become non-current at the end of the quarter and, as a result, will be unable to conduct ''check rides'' for the air crews they are assigned to oversee.
    The FAA's travel budget has also been impacted by a lack of funds, and inspectors need to travel, not only to undergo training but also to perform inspections.
    By way of example, inspectors at the Albuquerque office who are there to support the El Paso, Texas, office as well will no longer be able to travel after the end of March. This means that they can no longer support El Paso and that some 2,000 commercial flight operations per month will go uninspected.
    In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank Mr. Lipinski for inviting PASS to testify today.
    PASS believes that increasing the FAA's budget is a necessary investment in both the current NAS and the NAS of the future. In short, we believe that more funding, as long as it is invested wisely, will have a positive impact on the safety of the National Airspace System.
    I thank you.
 Page 49       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Fanfalone. Dr. Cooksey was here and then had to slip out temporarily while we were giving the statements, and I am going to go first to Dr. Cooksey for any questions he might have. Dr. Cooksey.
    Mr. COOKSEY. Very brief statement. Your testimony has all been very good and very much on point. I am still a pilot, probably not a very safe one but a pilot, and there is no question that the funding—we need to get the funding in there. There are a lot of things that need to be done to enhance the aviation safety programs and certain of the—instrument program facilities. So I find no disagreement with anything you said. Hopefully, this will all happen this year.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me ask Ed Wytkind if I may. Your strong support for continued general fund payment, I appreciate your comments there. I assume you are strongly opposed to the administration's proposal to fund all of the FAA entirely from the trust fund? Is that correct?
    Mr. WYTKIND. That is correct. We want to make sure there is a robust general treasury investment in aviation. That would be correct.
    Mr. LAMPSON. Are there any panelists who would support this proposal for the administration?
    What do you think the appropriate level of general fund contribution might be, should be?
    Mr. WYTKIND. We organizationally haven't come up with an actual figure. I would just say that if this committee succeeds, which I know it will in bringing the entire aviation budget up to the level it needs to be, that there has to be a commensurate investment on that side of the ledger to make sure it is high enough. I can't tell you the figure today. I would be happy to get back to you and tell you what that number should be. We just don't have that today.
 Page 50       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. LAMPSON. OK. Mr. Fanfalone, you and a number of the other panelists stressed the inadequate training budget or low priority placed on training. Do we need an education and training plan for FAA employees? And as a part of our financial reform efforts, would you support specific authorizations and requirements for an adequate training—technical training budget?
    Besides financial, are there other steps we need to take to ensure technical experts have the tools they need to respond to problems?
    Mr. FANFALONE. Yes, I do. I believe the FAA needs to have an aggressive training program. The modernization of the NAS is more than hardware improvements. It is also about rebuilding the infrastructure. It is also a look at the business practice of how training is conducted, not necessarily is Oklahoma City the right answer, that we can be more aggressive with on-site training and that we can get our systems specialists up to speed with the modernized hardware in a much faster, more efficient means by doing it on site.
    Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you.
    Mr. Broderick, how can it be that four months into the fiscal year FAA's safety organization still doesn't know what its budget is? Can you talk about that for just a bit, please?
    Mr. BRODERICK. Well, it involves a lot of technical complexity. Let me just say that when you look at what the budget was that was presented by the President, and compare that to what proposed expenditures were authorized, the numbers for operations are roughly in balance. But the budget was prepared quite a bit earlier than when it was actually appropriated. What you find is that events occur and needs change between the time the budget is actually submitted from the working level at the FAA, until the time the Congress appropriates the funds occur to change needs.
    I mean, two very specific changes I can cite. The first is about a hundred million dollars this year is unplanned but required to pay for pay increases in the FAA that came from the contract negotiations with the air traffic controllers and some fallout from that.
 Page 51       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Number two, the half percent pay raise, which is an amazingly large amount of money, I think it is $15 million, $17 million. That was put in the budget at the time of the appropriation. Congress knew about this, but they didn't provide additional funds.
    A third thing is there was about a $43 million plan to collect overflight fees that was put into the budget, and it was accepted by Congress when they appropriated funds. That money never appeared.
    You add all that up, that is close to $150 million. That has got to come out of discretionary funds. Because you need all the air traffic controllers, you need the inspectors and that kind of stuff. By the time you ripple through the process of trying to understand how to get that money, you are a few months into the fiscal year after the appropriation. And the cuts have to be taken now. And that is even worse because there is only two-thirds of the year in which to absorb all of that, which is another 50 percent hit effectively on the amount which has to be absorbed.
    As they say, the devil is in the details; and these details are very large sums of money with a budget this big.
    Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all for now.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Lampson.
    Mr. Thune.
    Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I really don't have any questions, but I am glad to hear unanimous support for unlocking the trust fund. As someone who represents a rural State, a lot of non-hub airports, our concern is, as we head into the future, a lot of those airports don't have the capability to utilize bond programs and passenger facility charges and so forth and so the airport improvement program is critical in our part of the country.
 Page 52       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    I look forward to a discussion on this subject and hope that we can make progress toward seeing that those taxes that are paid and dedicated for that purpose end up being used for that purpose. So I appreciate the hearing this morning and the witnesses who are here to give us your insights and look forward to further discussion of the subject.
    Thank you.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
    Mr. LoBiondo.
    All right. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Fanfalone, you mentioned quite a bit about your thoughts about on-site training and how it is not working or it is inefficient to send people to Oklahoma City. Do you mean having on-site training at almost every FAA location around the country or have you done any cost estimates or considered the specifics on what you are proposing? Could this be done more cheaply than what we are doing now or would this be a hugely expensive proposition? Have you gone into that in any detail?
    Mr. FANFALONE. Yes, sir. As we look at the skill level that our existing journey level specialists have and the gap in that skill set for the new equipment that is coming down the road, we believe that if you are training journey level specialists they have a certain fundamental understanding of NAS systems and that the Delta, the degree of additional training that is needed can be easily accomplished on site.
    This is network administration. This is software maintenance skills. It is about troubleshooting networks. This does not require million dollar pieces of hardware in Oklahoma City for hands-on training. This is mostly software classroom style. It is available at many community colleges and trade schools throughout the country, and we believe it can be done cheaply, much more effectively, much quicker on site.
    At the same time, you are not further depleting an understaffed organization that would then have to spend weeks on end in Oklahoma City. I think this frees up our ability to be more creative with watch schedules; and certainly, with the travel and per diem money saved by going to Oklahoma City, it is truly an investment in rebuilding the skill set of our workforce.
 Page 53       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask you this. You know there is great support for aviation on both sides of the aisle. It is very important to all of us because most of us fly every week almost and so the FAA has strong support. I think almost everybody on this committee is trying to unlock the trust fund and get more money for aviation, and we see increased needs.
    But I mentioned in my statement that the last increase we gave for the FAA was 6 percent. Now, that doesn't sound big, but that is about twice the rate of inflation, and it is much more—it is a much larger increase than most departments or agencies got, and we have been doing that, you know. We have been giving what most of us—to most members it is so frustrating when we go to some of these FAA facilities and we see almost all new equipment but then we keep reading these stories and hearing about other places where they are working with computers and equipment that is very old.
    What is going wrong? You know, is the money just being blown away someplace. What can we do to make sure that this money is spent more efficiently and that the places that have that outdated, antiquated equipment, that they can get what they need?
    Mr. FANFALONE. I think what we need at the moment is a tremendous investment in the hardware. The NAS modernization is only beginning and, with that, we would like to be a player, to provide technical expertise to the FAA, to help exactly as you suggest. Identify the locations that have significant equipment problems and to be able to deploy those systems quickly, smartly and to make sure that our workforce is capable of receiving the new equipments and, in fact, moving to a whole new technology.
    Mr. DUNCAN. We have a very important responsibility. You know, it is more than just one step. It is more than just getting a big increase in funding. We have a second very important step, our obligation to try to see that that money is spent efficiently and effectively and that we get the most bang for our buck. And so we really need to hear proposals on that or ideas or suggestions. Because I think some of this money has not been spent as effectively as it should have been in the past.
 Page 54       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    And, Mr. Broderick, that leads me to the WAAS situation. Because, you know, all of us, we get so used to getting low ball estimates on these major programs and then there are these cost overruns and delays. I guess the ultimate example is the space program. Originally, that was supposed to cost $8 billion and then we got into that now. Gosh, the estimates are 12 or 14 times the original cost. And the supercollider and many, many others.
    But the WAAS system, you have mentioned that there was congressional displeasure with the WAAS and the delays and so forth and so the funds were cut back and your managers had to absorb or hide the costs or whatever. Don't you understand why there is frustration when we keep getting these delays and these cost overruns and so forth? And what—where do we stand now?
    Mr. BRODERICK. I think, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you that there is frustration, but I think it is shared on both sides of the table. You are talking about programs, when you talk about the NAS modernization and the satellite programs, that extend over many years. Yet they are funded in annual increments now because we don't do full funding for FAA programs any more. So they are funded in annual increments, of part of that money, maybe. And in 1999, the people are going to be preparing very shortly budget estimates for not the year 2000—they will be working on that—but for the year 2001.
    Now when you don't know how much money you are going to get in fiscal year 2000, and you have got to prepare a budget estimate for fiscal year 2001, how can you turn to the people that are working on this program and say we have got a good strategic—if I can call three, four, five years a strategic plan—for funding and for spending the money?
    I think that there is a real problem with regard to the mismatch in the timing and the appropriation on the one hand and, second, the inability of any manager, whether it is a congressional manager or an executive branch manager, to predict what kind of funding they are going to have in a couple of years.
 Page 55       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    So how in the world can you expect to manage funds for a program that is going to take four, five, six or more years to carry out, a program that has uncertainty inherent in it, a program that has got a lot of research and barriers that need to be broken and technologies that need to be understood and newly applied? How can you expect that to work over a five- or six-year period, when you have only uncertain increments of annual funding?
    Much of the dissatisfaction, I think, comes from the fact that the budget estimate and comments that were made by program managers 2 years ago are now out of date and not in sync with the President's budget submission because things have changed. But the system doesn't allow the people to revise the budget continuously. You look at budgets that are very old when you debate them in the upcoming appropriations and authorization hearings.
    And it is a real problem. This is not something that you can solve just by throwing more money at it. Throwing more money at it, I think, in uncertain annual increments for many, many year-long programs is just going to have more of the same.
    Mr. DUNCAN. That is the point I was trying to make. Everybody wants to get more money for the system, but we do have that very important second step, that we have got to make sure it is spent more efficiently and effectively.
    Yesterday I had a conversation in my office with Mr. Burnley, the former Secretary of Transportation; and I showed him this article from a newspaper in New York about some of the antiquated equipment and so forth that Mr. Fanfalone and I talked about. He sort of shook his head and said, you know, we were having these exact same conversations back in the mid–1980's. And I just wonder, you were in a very important position at the FAA, and you know a lot about it. Do we need a change in the culture, as some people call it, at the FAA? If you could have one major wish, what do you think is the most important thing we need to do to try to see that 10 years from now or 20 years from now, other people aren't sitting in these seats asking these same questions or expressing these same frustrations?
 Page 56       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. BRODERICK. Mr. Chairman, I tried to outline it in my testimony. Let us agree on a plan that extends over a number of years for these complex programs and technologies.
    You stick to it, require the FAA to stick to it, and then you can hold them accountable. But if you can't agree to a 4-, 5-, 6-year plan for these years, then don't be surprised if 2 years from now it isn't exactly what you thought it was going to be 2 years ago. Things change in the interim, and people have no way to predict that. You give them a plan, hold them to it, hold yourselves to it, then you can hold them accountable.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Right. Well, I have got several more questions, but I have run way over my time. But it is sort of like you know, it is sort of like these huge surpluses that we are predicting 15 years into the future. Well, I certainly hope that we have those surpluses, but I can tell you I am a little bit skeptical. We have a hard enough time predicting what the economy is going to do a year or two from now much less 10 or 15 years down the road.
    Mr. Oberstar.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I so agree with you on that last point. I subscribe to the Harry Truman's philosophy about government economists, he said bring me a one-armed economist, and said why, Mr. President, he said because every time I ask them a question, they say on the one hand, but on the other hand. He said I want a one-armed economist. I want one answer.
    And you are right, these guys in the Council of Economic Advisers and the Office of Management and Budget and the rest of them, they can't tell you where the economy is going to be 6 months from now, let alone 15 years from now.
    But to pick up on your last exchange with Mr. Broderick, I think that is the key. I mean his answer is develop a multiyear plan, fix the requirements, this is it. We are not going to change these things and then build to that plan, and hold the contractor accountable, hold the agency accountable. The biggest frustration I had, and I think Mr. Schaffer will remember, our committee counsel, will remember very well when we went out to Germantown to meet with IBM Federal Systems on the deal that was—what is known as the DSR, and IBM together with FAA, you couldn't tell where the culture of one stopped and the other started, had changed the requirements so many times.
 Page 57       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    They didn't look like the original contract. And I said to Mr. Epcar am I to get a hammer and some nails and nail your shoes to the floor, so you can't move. You stay in one place. And they bring in the air traffic controllers too late in the process, and the controller says, well, if you would ask us, we want a flashing red light to show conflict situation, we want a flashing yellow light to show a potential conflict situation. We want color here and color there.
    We want opaque windows so it doesn't cover up the screen. We don't want—we want the track ball over here, not over there. We don't want to take our eyes off the screen. And the contractors build entirely different system that didn't have the controllers input. They came in way in after the engineers had all decided what was good for the air traffic controllers.
    So you had mistakes on the part of the FAA, systems design engineers. You had mistakes on the part of the contractor. Then you have the controllers who were never satisfied. I mean they always want some new feature and toy; fix the requirements, get everybody in early in the system and then stick with it and assure the long-range funding.
    It all sounds simple. But then you have to turn around and deal with people, people in the Congress, people in the House and the Senate, not with us on the authorizing committee, but those rascals on the Appropriations Committee keep changing things.
    Now, Mr. O'Brien, from your service on the Civil Aviation Review Commission, the commission did not recommend a corporation, but it did propose something that gained favor around this administration called a performance-based organization for air traffic services.
    I have been roundly skeptical of these ideas, especially the administration's first shot at air traffic control, make it a corporation, put it under control of the airlines and then cross your fingers and hope everything goes well. You are one of the premier safety experts in aviation.
 Page 58       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Why do you think this is a good idea? What is it about a performance-based organization that is different from what we have today?
    Mr. O'BRIEN. Well, in actuality———
    Mr. OBERSTAR. What is a performance-based organization, for God's sake?
    Mr. O'BRIEN. In simple terms I believe that performance-based organization is one which sets specific goals and identifies ways to measure achievement of those goals. The managers, middle and upper level managers are held to those performance-based goals. Promotions and bonuses and even firings are made in line with how those performance goals are met.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. How is that different from what the FAA does today?
    Mr. O'BRIEN. Today it is rather difficult to implement the ability to reward through promotions, to provide bonuses, salary increases or to fire, based upon achievement of goals when we don't even have goals set that are performance-based. And I am not sure that the civil service system would allow FAA to operate in that manner today.
    I know that over the past several years there has been attempts on the part of the FAA to modify its culture, change the way it does business. I believe there is a significant difference between an attempt by an individual agency to reach that goal or method of operation, and having a mandate to do it.
    So if there was a mandate placed upon the agency that it should do that and it was defined exactly what that mandate meant, I think the agency would be able to accomplish the goal of transitioning to performance-based management much quicker. I would like to comment a little bit on the past discussion.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Briefly.
    Mr. O'BRIEN. Performance-based organizations are a part of the necessary ingredients to reach the goals that we talked about earlier. Continuous funding, continuous funding streams, long-range goals, short- and near-term goals and achievement of those goals between the years of that long-range funding cycle. Unless you have specific goals and milestones set up and drive your management culture towards achieving those goals within those milestones, then you are not going to accomplish any of them.
 Page 59       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    So the performance-based method of operation that the commission recommended was a necessary part of the package which included funding streams. Taxes, user fees, and general revenues were all part of that equation. But you couldn't do one without the other. Changing the funding methods did no good without having a performance-based structure to go along with it, to manage it effectively.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, John. I would really like to have you and Tony and a couple of others I can think of sit down and have a round table discussion about that subject. And we can't do it right now, time is already running out on me.
    But I want to ask Mr. Broderick a broader policy question. You described the situation in which the fixed part of the FAA budget is growing so large that discretionary, discretionary funding of the budget is at great risk. Does that impact on safety? Does that affect decisions and ability to hire more safety personnel and provide training? Is there a financial reform? Are there changes—we are now at a point we are going to be writing a bill that is going to affect this balance between fixed part of the budget and discretionary part of the budget. Give us some of the benefit of the fund of your years of experience.
    Mr. BRODERICK. Mr. Oberstar, I think that the difficulty that you have is that the distinction that I am making between the fixed and discretionary parts are reality. The fixed part is what I call the salaries of the employees, the rent, heat, light, utilities, benefits, that kind of thing. You can't do anything about it, except reduce the number of employees.
    My point was that the only alternative any manager has, whether they are in business or in government, is to take budget cuts out of the discretionary part of the budget. And my point was that because that is such a small part of the FAA budget in operations, about 1/5, the effect is magnified by a factor of 5 when you make a budget cut.
    So I don't know that you can make any legislative provision that deals with that. It is just in fact the reality. What I would hope is that we would be able to get, as you indicated earlier and as the chairman indicated, something that is more stable, more predictable, so that we can lay out a long-range plan that both the executive and legislative branches can agree to and then hold each side to their part of the bargain; legislative for appropriations, and the executive for carrying out the work.
 Page 60       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    But I don't think that there is a simple, or even frankly a complex, fix in legislation to the split between discretionary and nondiscretionary. That is just the reality of management.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Mr. Wytkind, you talked about, as did Mr. O'Brien, the importance of small airport certification, something that I have vigorously advocated, which we wrote into law in a recent reauthorization of FAA.
    Have you at the Transportation Trades Department given some thought to the amount of funding that may be necessary to devote to small airports to improve their competitiveness, their service in the era of hub and spoke aviation and have an impact on safety at the same time?
    Mr. WYTKIND. First of all, you are right, our organization, along with many others, supported the efforts of Congress to initiate this program. The problem is it is not being carried out. We supported the funding, I believe that was in last year's bill, to deal with this issue, but more importantly, what we have been focusing on in our testimony and in our public appearances has been we have got to make this rulemaking happen. It is long overdue, and it needs to occur without any further delay.
    And I don't think there is any disagreement on the part of the parties that have come together to agree on this provision and the bipartisan nature of the provision that was agreed to by Congress.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, we did include, in addition to imposing the requirements on small airports to meet higher safety standards, we did provide a funding set-aside. We may want to consider expanding that.
    Mr. Chairman, I have just one further question if I might.
    Mr. Higgins, your excellent statement, I appreciate very much your presentation by the way. Although I wasn't here for your oral presentation, I read all of this material ahead of time. You said as airline alliances become more prevalent, it makes less and less difference where aviation accidents occur. Most of the safety concern is about CFIT, controlled flight into terrain. Most of those tragedies have happened outside the United States, although we have had our share. Pittsburgh, ValuJet, just to name a few.
 Page 61       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. HIGGINS. That's correct.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. What are the advances in safety technology that you at Boeing have given the most consideration to that will give the greatest advance to deterrence of CFIT?
    Mr. HIGGINS. Well, Mr. Oberstar, as you may be aware, the enhanced ground proximity warning system is a system that will provide between 30 seconds and one minute advanced warning for running into an obstacle or a mountain or something to that effect. I think, as you are also aware, we have installed that on all of our new production airplanes effective this year.
    As well, the entire U.S. fleet is going to refit their airplanes with enhanced ground proximity warning systems. So we will effectively within the next 3 to 5 years have eliminated the threat to the U.S. fleet in all probability for controlled flight into terrain. My point about alliances is that whereas the U.S. fleet will have done that, those people that partner with U.S. airlines may or may not have done it.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. And U.S. passengers are on those code-shared flights in other countries———
    Mr. HIGGINS. That's correct.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. —with different standards, training, equipment and———
    Mr. HIGGINS. Exactly correct.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. —and greater exposure to safety?
    Mr. HIGGINS. While the U.S. passengers will know there is minimum threat to controlled flight into terrain as he climbs in the airplane, let's say in New York, as he moves into Latin America and gets on a code-share to go further on the flight, where in Latin America the risk of controlled flight into terrain is much greater, those airplanes may not be equipped with that equipment. So the level of safety will be lower.
 Page 62       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Tony, do you know whether the French government has proceeded with its recommendation of its safety commission to require the advanced technology for ground proximity warning systems on its aircraft?
    Mr. BRODERICK. I am not certain of the current status of that, Mr. Oberstar. I know that the work that Mr. Higgins mentioned earlier in ICAO, the global aviation safety program, focused in a lot on encouraging people through ICAO standards to incorporate these kinds of equipments in their existing airplanes. And, of course, the new airplanes all around the world are now being equipped with this equipment.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. That is all very encouraging in new aircraft and the new production models coming out of Boeing have that technology, but that is a small number of the world's fleet. And as U.S. carriers dump their older model DC–9s, 737s in the world marketplace, those aircraft aren't being upgraded to the newer standards.
    And then there is a last question that I wanted to ask, and that is are you aware of the European Commission proposed rulemaking on noise and older model U.S. aircraft? Mr. Higgins or Mr. Broderick?
    Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, I am aware of it. I am aware that it impacts mostly the freight carriers and airlines with older airplanes in terms of their airplanes with hush kits that are in fact stage 3 compliant and are being targeted for noncompliance with lower noise standards in Europe.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. That is an astonishing proposed rulemaking. Mr. Broderick, do you have a comment on that? I know you follow these European developments closely.
    Mr. BRODERICK. Yes, I think it is something that flies against the ICAO noise rules and the agreements within ICAO to follow ICAO standards. Of course each country has the ability to set their own standards. But the nonaddition provisions that are probably—that are currently being discussed in the European government are very disturbing, because they adversely affect the value, not only of the freight airplanes that Mr. Higgins was talking about, but of all future 727s, because you wouldn't be able to take a 727 or DC–9 and add hush kits to meet the ICAO standards and add it to the registry.
 Page 63       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    It is something that I think is opposed by both the major aircraft manufacturers and certainly the owners of these aircraft and the potential operators as well as the present operators of it.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that I think deserves the subcommittee's attention. I think an appropriate letter on behalf of or by the leadership of this subcommittee to sources that I will suggest would be an appropriate action for us. I think the European Commission action borders on violations of international trade. It is not noise motivated, it is trade motivated in my judgment.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I agree with you, Mr. Oberstar. It is very, very important then, and I think it would be appropriate to take some action, and we will work on that.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Give that some consideration.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, sir.
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.
    Mr. Metcalf.
    Mr. METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry for being late, Mr. Chairman, but I have read Mr. Higgins' testimony and have just one question for him.
    Based on the current budget pressures and the realism that the FAA must do more with less, as a manufacturer, do you see the FAA's role changing as we move into the next century relative to the aircraft certification and regulation?
    Mr. HIGGINS. Yes, Mr. Metcalf. I think that in the interest of improving the efficiency of the FAA, there are opportunities in the future. And so let me give just a brief example to help with an understanding of what I am thinking about and has been discussed with the FAA.
 Page 64       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    If you consider us as a manufacturer, we have a manufacturing facility, and we are responsible by delegation from the FAA to ensure the quality of the products as they move through that system. In other words, each individual airplane has to meet the same standard as the original airplane that received its type certification. And so over the years, Boeing has developed a very mature system. And so the FAA has delegated us the responsibility for that quality control system; it is a total quality system.
    And the FAA comes in and provides an audit of that system on a regular basis to make sure that we are in fact meeting our own standards. Now, from an engineering standpoint, certification standpoint, we have been designing and building jet aircraft since the '60's. We are a very mature organization. So we have developed an internal ability on our own to do the certification process.
    In fact, today we have over 250 DERs that are delegated by the FAA to do engineering analysis work. In the future what we think would lead to greater efficiency is if we use the model of the manufacturing system, develop a total quality system for the engineering and certification aspect and increase the delegation from the FAA to us.
    So that the FAA would be purely auditing our internal processes and procedures and allowing us to regulate ourselves internally, if you will, with an internal organization. This will free up FAA resources to take on the more important tasks, we think, for them, which is establishing worldwide standards dealing with regulations and really auditing our internal processes. We think the same kind of thing can apply to the operations area.
    We have very mature airlines in the U.S., so as we go forward, many of the airlines could take on this total quality approach as well and do internal oversight and free up FAA inspectors to deal with less mature organizations and emergent organizations and also work on the international arena. That is the kind of thing that I think will be necessary as we move into the next century.
 Page 65       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. METCALF. Thank you.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Higgins, have you looked at the administration's proposals about the user fees, which is always controversial, and what do you think about their latest proposals?
    Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I haven't looked in detail at those proposals. I spend most of my time in Washington at 800 Independence Avenue and down at the L'Enfant Plaza dealing with the NTSB. I would submit though that from our perspective we think it is necessary to fully fund the FAA. And as part of that full funding, we think it is necessary that some of the funding come from the general fund, because a lot of the work that the FAA does, particularly in our arena, is for the general welfare of the public and has nothing to do with service.
    Mr. DUNCAN. What are Boeing projections for, say, the next 10 years or 5 years or whatever you might recall as to the number of aircraft that you intend to add to the U.S. or the worldwide fleet, and do you think that our airports have the capacity to handle the demands that are going to be made over the next few years? Are we going to go to much, much bigger aircraft, putting more people in larger airplanes, or do you project that there is going to be a huge increase in the number of planes flying?
    I mentioned some of the projections about the number of passengers and so forth. Are we woefully short on the capacity to handle these—the growth that most people think is there. What is your assessment of that?
    Mr. HIGGINS. Well, I haven't made any specific assessment. But we all expect the U.S. system to grow at about the rate of about 5 percent a year. We are going to be adding next year over 620 airplanes to the worldwide fleet. And we think some years after that it is going to be between 3- to 400, so the fleet is going to continue to grow; in terms of the impact, we have heard various testimony about the state of the gridlock today.
 Page 66       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Something the people may not realize is that just on a flight from, let's say, L.A. to Seattle, there is the effect of 60 additional miles put into every flight plan just to allow for air traffic control routing and delays today. That situation exists all over the U.S. So there is great efficiency—inefficiency built into the system today. So we are already from that perspective, it is sort of an economic disadvantage. So any growth in the future is certainly going to compound that.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. O'Brien, you mentioned the runway incursion problem and the 14 people that were killed. And do you have the impression based on recent actions of the FAA that they don't feel that the runway incursion problem or wildlife mitigation are as important as you perhaps think they are?
    Mr. O'BRIEN. The recent actions on part of the FAA and certainly the runway incursion area would bear out that statement. The fact that the program wasn't funded last year, and the proposed budget submitted by FAA didn't include funding for that program would lead one to wonder what is happening; what is going on. We have specific recommendations that have come out of joint industry and government committees on runway incursions.
    I guess there is only one possible sound rationale today for not taking action immediately. That is the existance of yet another government industry effort on runway incursions as part of the safer skies problem, the strategic plan for safety. It is supposed to be a fairly short endurance effort, about 6 months, to come up and identify specific actions that FAA should take based upon accident and incident data.
    We are pretty sure that this effort will just verify the recommendations that have come out of earlier efforts in the same area. That is why we had suggested in our testimony that $3 million be allocated right now without waiting for that effort to be completed, because we know that many of the recommendations that are standing now ready for action will be verified by this effort that we will undertake in the next 6 months.
 Page 67       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Broderick, I mentioned the WAAS program, and we got into the delays and the cost overruns and so forth in many, many programs, but let's go to the Stars program. That is a program—and this is also typical and frustrating. I suppose if we asked two different very well informed people about that program as to how much that program has cost thus far, we would probably get 2 wide variations in the estimates.
    And what I am wondering about, if you know, sir, where do we stand now with that, and do you think that—do you think that the main problem or one of the main problems in that program has been the fact that the human factors and the feelings of some of the employee groups weren't taken into consideration as much as they should have been or what is your assessment of STARS right now?
    Mr. BRODERICK. Mr. Chairman, let me tell you, I don't know. I am not an expert on STARS and I would hate to venture any kind of an opinion on that.
    Mr. DUNCAN. That is a good answer, I guess. Well, we will get into that with the FAA next week then. I just kind of assumed that you are an expert on every single thing about the FAA I suppose.
    But at any rate, Mr. Oberstar, do you have any additional questions?
    Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, you were very generous with the red light a little while ago and I think I covered the highlights of what I wanted.
    But your point about STARS is an important one, it involves this issue that we were having a general exchange about in which Mr. Ehlers discussed on the House floor yesterday during consideration of the FAA bill, and that is fixing the requirements at an earlier stage, involving the air traffic controllers early on in the process, bringing the engineers together with the practitioners of the skill of air traffic control and then setting those requirements early on and staying with it.
    But it was utter folly for a group of engineers to say that we think the keyboard should be down here instead of up here at the top. We think we ought to get rid of the track ball, because that is old technology. Without ever asking those who are going to apply the system we are going to use it. Just like, and I'm sure Mr. Schaffer will recall this very well, when we had a meeting with—on what is now known as the DSR, display system replacement, the en route system, with the Federal Systems Division of IBM.
 Page 68       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    And the engineer sat down at the keyboard and hit 57 key strokes to send a command to an aircraft. 57 key strokes times 27 aircraft in a controllers sector times 6 or 7 movements or commands to that aircraft as it moves through that sector. Those are thousands of strokes on a keyboard. And the engineer calmly said, well, we can do that. Sure, you can do it here in the comfort or the quiet of your room, but not in the real world of an air traffic controlled operation.
    That is what frustrates me. And that is what frustrates the public looking in on it as tens of millions and hundreds of million of dollars go out the window and we don't have a system in place to do this. Now the voice switching and control system was another story. It was a high success story, came in just a little bit overbudget maybe $100 million or so overbudget, but on time, and was installed over one weekend without shutting down the aircraft traffic control system for one second. It was the equivalent of installing, changing a tire on your car driving 60 miles an hour. So FAA can have some successes where they apply the right management principles.
    Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. All of these things are very difficult to deal with. I know Dr. Ehlers yesterday on the floor, and he is one of the leading, if not the leading, computer expert in the entire Congress, and I am on the opposite end of that scale. So I can't verify or dispute what he said.
    But he said, I remember him saying yesterday on the floor that, and I think he quoted Senator Cohen, Secretary of Defense Cohen when he was in the Senate, that saying every computer that the Federal Government purchases now is at least 2 years out of date or obsolete by at least 2 years, and he said probably more like 3 years. And it just looks like that we could do a little better job on some of these things than we are doing. And certainly I think that we were, I hope that all of us on this subcommittee will try as hard to make the improvements that we can in this system.
 Page 69       PREV PAGE       TOP OF DOC    Segment 2 Of 4  
    But each of you have made, I think, very valuable contributions to that effort, and you have made very fine statements, and I appreciate the fact that all of you have taken time out of what I know are very busy schedules to be here with us today.
    That will conclude this hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

    [insert here]

Next Hearing Segment(3)