Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
MODERNIZATION EFFORTS AT THE BOSTON EN ROUTE CENTER
Monday, October 11, 1999
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., at Daniel Webster College, Collings Auditorium in the Eaton Richmond Center, 20 University Drive, Nashua, New Hampshire, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding.
Mr. DUNCAN. I'd like to go ahead and call this meeting of the Aviation Subcommittee to order, and I want first of all to say how pleased I am that we are here at the Daniel Webster College in this beautiful setting of New Hampshire. And we're holding today our fifth field hearing of the year. We have earlier been in West Virginia and Wichita, Kansas. Three weeks ago we were at Skidmore outside of Albany, and we are very pleased to be here today at the request of our friend Congressman Charles Bass who does such a great job in the Congress, and especially with our Aviation Subcommittee, being one of the very few pilots in the Congress. And also, I'm pleased to have Congressman John Baldacci of Maine. We will be shortly going up to Bangor for a continuation of this today, but covering some other topics.
Before we really start the hearing, and we have several outstanding and distinguished witnesses, we are very pleased to have Miss Hanna McCarthy who is the president of the Daniel Webster College.
And Ms. McCarthy, we are very pleased that you could be here with us this morning, and I'd like to call on you for any remarks you wish to make at this time.
TESTIMONY OF HANNA MCCARTHY, PRESIDENT, DANIEL WEBSTER COLLEGE
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Duncan. Chairman Duncan, Congressmen Baldacci and Bass, members of the Department of Transportation, members of the FAA and honored guests, it's certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity to welcome all of you to Daniel Webster College for this special congressional field hearing regarding modernization efforts of the Boston Air Traffic Control Center.
Daniel Webster College clearly is the northeast leader and center for aviation education and such. We're excited to have the chance to have you with us, and we think it's fitting that we should host this field hearing today.
When we were founded, and since our founding in 1965, Daniel Webster has been devoted to the development of airspace professionals and to an open dialogue about air safety issues. We are home of the most comprehensive and intensive flight-training program in the United States at the collegiate level, and we're a member of the FAA's collegiate training initiative, training and developing future air traffic controllers. We exhibit consistently our commitment to air safety through a variety of educational and professional programs that link air traffic control and other flight professionals in educational exchange and ongoing dialogue.
On October the 26th we will be hosting here our first fall conference on initiatives in aviation, and in November we will share with the FAA a program on the safe skies to be held in Boston in conjunction with the northeast region of the FAA.
We share your commitment as members of this important committee to safe skies, and we're absolutely delighted that you're here with us on our campus investigating the safety of our airspace. If there is ever any way our college of students or faculty can ever assist you in the future, we certainly hope that you will call upon us. It is a pleasure to have you here, and we enjoy seeing you. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, President McCarthy. It is very appropriate that we would have this field hearing at a college with an emphasis on aviation, and what an exciting field it is particularly at this time in our history. We moved 615 million passengers commercially last year without a single fatality, which is an unbelievable record. In fact, it amazes many people when I tell them that unfortunately, we've had more fatalities on our nation's highways in four and a half months than we've had in all aviation accidents combined since Wilbur Wright took his first flight in 1903. So it is a phenomenal record, but we need to always be striving to do things better. And not only is air passenger traffic growing by leaps and bounds, air cargo traffic is growing at the rate, they tell me, two and a half times faster than the air passenger traffic.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And so it's an exciting time to be dealing in the field of aviation, and a paramount time and opportunity, President McCarthy, for your students to establish themselves in what I think to be very good careers.
We are having this hearing today, as I said, at the request of Congressman Bass to deal with the very difficult issues of FAA modernization, particularly as it relates to air traffic control. This is something that the FAA has been struggling with since the early '80's. And in fact, I was telling my colleagues a few minutes ago that earlier this year I was meeting with Jim Burnley who was the Secretary of Transportation under President Reagan, and I showed him that there was an article in one of the New York City newspapers about some air traffic control delays. And he shook his head in frustration and said that he was reading articles like that in the mid '80's. So we all hope that we can do better in these next few years.
We have given the FAA some of its largest increases in funding in the last three or four or five years, and we just completed a tour of the beautiful center here in Nashua, and saw that they will be moving into all new equipment. And I believe; what did they say, Friday, Charles?
Mr. BASS. Yes.
Mr. DUNCAN. And be totally off the old systems by, they said, hopefully by November 1st. So we saw some good news today. There is much good news throughout the country. There is a great deal of new equipment; in fact, almost all new equipment going into these air traffic control centers, yet it seems that the news media likes to focus on the fact that if they can find some equipment that's a little bit old, we hear about that much more instead of all of the billions and billions of dollars that are being spent on new computers and all sorts of new equipment. And it is frustrating to all of us that in the past we have had many delays, failed programs, cost overruns, and hopefully, we can do much, much better.
The STARS Program is four years past schedule, and both the WAAS and AAS programs have certainly had their troubles. Congress has appropriated over $27 billion since the modernization programs started. The FAA estimates it will need another 17 billion over the next five years, and we still just don't have enough to show for the investments that have been made in the past, but I do think that things are getting better.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The FAA has just completed the first phase of the HOCSR Program which is on schedule. It also appears that the DSR Program is ahead of schedule and under budget. And as I said, the Boston Center is going to be implementing some new DSR equipment on a limited basis some time next week, and then totally within a few weeks after that. Nevertheless, we implemented the service after ongoing problems with certain modernization programs.
Earlier this summer the House passed legislation that will create an independent oversight board for air traffic control systems, and this board will function similar to the one that was established in the recent IRS reform legislation. Hopefully, these management reforms along with some other reforms, personnel and procurement reforms that were passed in legislation a couple of years ago, will provide the FAA with the tools it needs to successfully complete the total modernization of the air traffic control system, but we will look into this further. In fact, we're going to have a hearing on the delays with the ATC system on this Thursday.
But I would like to now turn to our host, Congressman Bass, for any statement he wishes to make.
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I do have an opening statement which I would like to have made a part of the record.
Mr. DUNCAN. It will be made a part of the record.
Mr. BASS. I will simply state very briefly that I'm very grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, and to you, Congressman Baldacci, for your willingness to participate in this important field hearing, giving us all the opportunity to have a really fascinating tour of the air traffic control center just down the road here, and to accomplish such an important, critical moment when we are right in the process of converting essentially from the old system to the new. And it is truly impressive, and we will be hearing testimony today not only from the General Accounting Office but from the FAA as well as the air traffic controllers. And I think when we finish our hearing today, I think the Subcommittee will have a very good idea, at least in this region, where we stand on issues that we can be proud of and some things we need to perhaps focus on.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So my thanks to you for having this hearing. Also, my thanks to President McCarthy who has run—runs a really fine institution. She turns out not only great pilots but also great air traffic controllers, and I appreciate the fact that she was willing to make her facility available to us this morning.
So with that, I'll give it back you to, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. I would like to hear from our distinguished colleagues that remain. And John Baldacci?
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I also would like to be able to enter remarks into the record at a later time that would be appropriate, and just thank you again, and also Congressman Bass for having this hearing and allowing me to be a part of this hearing and having really a wonderful tour of the new facilities and the transformation taking place serving all of us.
So I want to thank you for inviting me, Congressman Bass, and for being part of this Aviation Subcommittee hearing, and I'm looking forward to some very thoughtful testimony and an opportunity to ask questions. Thank you very much.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. We'll go ahead and ask the first panel of witnesses to take their seats at the table. And we have a real panel of experts on issues that we're dealing with here today. And we first will hear from Dr. Gerald Dillingham who is the Associate Director of Transportation Issues of the U.S. General Accounting Office, Mr. Peter Challan who is the Deputy Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services with the Federal Aviation Administration, Mr. Mike Blake who is the New England Regional Vice-President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. And he will be accompanied by Mr. William Johannes who is the Boston Air Traffic Control Facility Representative of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
Gentlemen, we're very pleased and honored to have each one of you with us. We always proceed in the order that the witnesses are listed on the formal agenda, and that means that Dr. Dillingham, we will start with you.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TESTIMONY OF GERALD L. DILLINGHAM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, RESOURCES, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE; PETER H. CHALLAN, ACTING DEPUTY ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES; AND MIKE BLAKE, NEW ENGLAND REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM JOHANNES, BOSTON AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITY REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. DILLINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our views on the FAA's Air Traffic Control Modernization Program and the implementation of the Display System Replacement project, or DSR.
Our statement this morning accompanied by a video presentation, will focus briefly on three issues: First, the status of the overall modernization program; second, FAA's progress in implementing the DSR project; and finally, some changes and success in the modernization program.
Regarding the overall modernization program, FAA estimates it will spend approximately $41 billion on the modernization effort through the year 2004. The modernization program is designed to replace and/or upgraded surveillance, navigation, communication and automation equipment in various stages of flight. The effort includes about 125 active projects with the majority of those projects being in automation such as the DSR project, and upgrading buildings and facilities.
Our ATC System is the largest in the world. It operates 24-hours a day, seven days a week, and it covers all phases of flight. To illustrate this, with the Chairman's permission and Representative Bass's permission, I would like to take the Subcommittee on a virtual trip.
If Representative Bass were taking a flight from Washington Reagan National to Boston Logan, the tower air traffic controller would start on the ground and control the flight to around five miles from Reagan National, and at about five miles out the flight is picked up by the Washington TRACON facility. At about 50 miles out, Representative Bass's flight will be handed off to the Washington En Route Center. As the flight progresses, they then hand it off to the New York En Route Center, and then on to the Boston En Route Center.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As the flight nears Boston the scenario is repeated between the terminal and the tower controllers. In addition to the safe landing, our point here is that the scenario is repeated thousands of times every day all over the nation, and each of these flights passes through various phases and facilities and will be affected by some aspect of modernization.
The DSR project is a reflection of FAA's revised approach to modernization. Until relatively recently FAA's approach has been characterized as the big bang approach where the FAA attempted to take on very large and complex projects all at once. Sometimes a project would involve adding new equipment and new functions at the same time.
The process was further challenged with the combination of finding specialized equipment and a constant modification of specifications. The new approach focuses on acquiring new systems by using a phased approach. This approach is based on the concept of 'build a little', 'test a little', 'employ a little' using off-the-shelf-equipment where feasible and holding the line on specifications.
With the DSR project, the FAA is concentrating on the replacement of the controllers' workstations and other supporting equipment, and then plans to add new ATC functions and capabilities at a later time. One of the most important factors about this project is that FAA developed DSR within its estimated cost and schedule milestones.
Nationwide, the DSR has been delivered to all 20 of the en route facilities that have been scheduled to receive it. Nine sites are fully operational, and the remaining eleven sites will be fully operational by May 2000.
The Boston En Route facility expects to be using DSR in a limited capacity this week; full operations should begin by January 2000. We believe that the FAA's success with implementing DSR could be a very encouraging sign for future modernization, and we believe that FAA's future success is contingent upon the agency's ability to take a number of actions: One, its implemental approach to acquiring equipment; two, its collaboration with end-users of the system, and its effort to address the other causes of earlier modernization problems. The agency's efforts which already are underway in these areas are encouraging and we believe a cause for optimism.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement, and we're prepared to answer any questions you or the Subcommittee has.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Challan?
Mr. CHALLAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Bass, Congressman Baldacci. It's a pleasure to be here today to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic control modernization efforts. I know that our modernization work at the Boston Air Traffic Control Center is of particular interest at this hearing. Accordingly, I would like to focus my remarks today on the most recent efforts at this location.
Currently the FAA's in the process of installing the Display System Replacement at all 20 of our air traffic control centers across the country. Essentially, the Display System Replacement replaces the 30-year-old radar displays used by the en route air traffic controllers at these air traffic control centers. These older radar displays are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain and are unable to adapt to changing technologies.
By contrast, the Display System Replacement which is already operational at nine of our air traffic control centers can support more than 200 workstations and 65 operational sectors of airspace in a single air traffic control center. This increase in operational capacity will allow the FAA to handle rising traffic loads while maintaining high levels of service.
The Display System Replacement receives air traffic data from the FAA's main computer systems, such as the Host system, and formats it for display to the controller. The Host computer system is the heart of the air traffic control system; it gathers all the flight data, for example, the position of aircraft in domestic and oceanic airspace, processes it and distributes this information to other facilities. The Display System Replacement translates that information into a format that is displayed on the monitor at a controller's workstation. The controller then uses that data for controlling aircraft in his or her sector.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Display System Replacement is capable of providing comprehensive information. DSR provides the capability to display aircraft position identification and National Airspace System, that's NAS, messages and lists, and print flight plan information. It also displays weather information as well as supporting several types of air traffic control positions with displays, and monitors and controls system equipment. It also provides information on the health of the equipment to the FAA maintenance system. Finally, the DSR program will provide replacement infrastructure upon which we base new air traffic control capabilities and support further planned enhancements to the air traffic control system.
In our modernization efforts, we are also working to incorporate an environment that is effective for the controller. Computer-human interface considerations were an important part of human factors research during development of the DSR. For example, DSR replaces existing controller workstations with monochrome 19-inch circular displays with new consoles, that includes a 20-by–20-inch square Sony high-resolution color display. Mechanical switches and knobs have been replaced with on-screen controls. Using a Windows-like format to display information in DSR, the elements are presented and easily transferable from the existing system, thus providing a familiar interface for the controller.
We are on track with our installation of this system in the local facility. The Boston Air Traffic Control Center located right here in Nashua was commissioned on March 31st, 1963. It currently covers 165,000 square miles of airspace that include all airports in Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire. The airspace also overlies most of New York State and extreme Northeastern Pennsylvania. There are 11 radar sites, 25 Remote Communication Air-to-Ground radio sites to support this facility.
The air traffic control center worked 1.9 million operations in the past year, a 10 percent increase from the previous year. There are over 250 air traffic controllers at the Boston Air Traffic Control Center out of a total of 508 employees. The installation of DSR will greatly enhance the environment and capabilities of the Boston Air Traffic Control Center as it has at the sites where it is already up and running.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
DSR was delivered to the Boston Air Traffic Control Center in December 1998 and has undergone an extensive testing phase. It is now scheduled for operational use, or Initial Operational Capability later this week, one month ahead of schedule. By the way, that's actually almost seven months ahead of the original waterfall schedule. The Boston site line of operations moved from 20 to 16 on the national waterfall.
This process of moving from initial capabilities to full operation is based on a well-planned and coordinating transition plan. During the next several months the controller workforce will transition from the old control room with the older radar equipment to the new display system replacement for the air traffic control room. This gradual transition into a new working environment will prevent adverse effects on the users or safety of air traffic control operations.
After the entire facility operates on the new equipment for a period of time to ensure a high level of confidence in the system, it will become fully operational or achieve Operational Readiness Demonstration. We anticipate that we will achieve Operational Readiness Demonstration by February 2000. This transition plan has become more seamless as we progress along our waterfall or progressive installation schedule, and is as minimally disruptive to the workforce as we can make it.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. The modernization of the nation's air traffic control system is among the FAA's highest priorities as it is the cornerstone of our mission, to ensure the safety of our airspace. And I am pleased to have a chance to discuss modernization efforts with you. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Challan. We'll next hear from Mr. Blake.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BLAKE. Good morning, Chairman Duncan, Congressman Bass, Congressman Baldacci, members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the FAA modernization, and specifically, the Display System Replacement, DSR, program. I am Mike Blake, Regional Vice-President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, the exclusive representative of over 15,000 Federal air traffic controllers and engineers within the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Defense and private sector.
NATCA has long believed that adequate and sustained funding is essential to the modernization of the national airspace system. Currently the FAA modernization effort consists of over 100 projects. We are firm supporters of Administrator Jane Garvey's build a little, test a little, employ a little strategy, and NATCA will remain an advocate of this throughout the modernization effort.
Admittedly there have been a number of problems and obstacles associated with modernization, but the FAA has recently turned the corner, and we would like to commend Administrator Garvey on her efforts at getting many of the ATC modernization projects like the Display System Replacement back on track.
Initially NATCA had no input into the DSR deployment and development, and the result—and as a result, it was an inefficient and unworkable console design for a controller's workstation. With the program on the verge of failure, an unprecedented agreement was reached. A small focus team consisting of FAA officials, staff, air traffic controllers and engineers joined forces. Together we were able to identify some feasible and affordable solutions and make the necessary fixes for DSR suitability in the current air traffic control environment. While these changes did not make the DSR system a model ATC display or console, it did make it useful.
DSR modernizes the FAA's air traffic controller computer equipment; specifically, DSR replaces the current monochrome 19-inch circular Plan View Displays, PVDs, which was updated with 20-by–20-inch square color displays. It replaces the data and assistant controller consoles and the display channels with new technology. DSR also provides redundant hardware and network paths for improved speed, reliability and capacity.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In addition to replacing antiquated equipment, DSR architecture serves as a platform for future air traffic control system upgrades. Because DSR provides an open architecture and modular design, future enhancements will more easily be integrated into this system. DSR is an essential element to NAS modernization; thus, adequate resources must be provided not only to complete DSR installation at all air traffic control centers, but also to allow DSR to evolve to accomplish a seamless integration of each new system that will be designed to achieve controller productivity, efficiency, and above all, safety.
Implementation of DSR at 20 air traffic controller centers is ongoing. It is currently operational in eight centers with the project slated to be complete by May 2000. With DSR in place, controllers will have the necessary tools to more efficiently handle today's traffic volume and to accommodate the projected increases in air traffic.
While implementation has not been without difficulty, only 3 percent of delays are attributable to these equipment failures and upgrades. DSR installation is like trying to change a tire while traveling at 60 miles per hour. Controllers must adjust to a new platform where the computer human interface is completely changed from the older system. At first, controllers will be spending a great deal of time with their heads down trying to find all the function keys on numeric keypads.
DSR has only evolved to a point where it is a minimally-acceptable program. Flight data processing and other software have not changed since 1972. While the computers used to process flight data have been recently upgraded to ensure Y2K compliance, the software use has not been upgraded.
The computer responsible for flight data processing is referred to as Host, or HOSCR. The antiquated programming language used by HOSCR remains a significant barrier. The available ports for radar displays, or PVDs, is limited to 60 per facility. This prevents a number of en route regional centers from immediately expanding the control positions that will allow controllers to handle increased capacity, volume and complexity.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Controllers do not have the tools they need to do their jobs. To illustrate, please refer to the following five handouts. Handout Number 1: This information which was downloaded from a public website is what you receive when you request the airfield information for Boston Logan International Airport. It is contained in the back of my statements. It is quite extensive.
Handout Number 2 shows what a controller at the Boston Air Traffic Control Center receives from the HOSCR computer when making a simple request from a control position. Basically, it has the name and field elevation, the length of the runway, and NAVAID is shown to control the airport.
Handout Number 3 shows what New York Center, Cleveland Center or any other en route center in the United States will receive when making a similar request, and it says ''not adapted.'' .
If I could shift gears just a little bit to Handout Number 4 which was downloaded also from a public website is what you receive as far as information at the Sugarloaf Regional Airport in Carrabassett, Maine. This is an airport which is controlled by the air traffic controllers in Area D of Boston Center.
Handout Number 5 shows that that airport is not adapted into the computer system of Boston Air Traffic Control Center. It is to be used as an emergency airport. A sixth-grader with access to the Internet is able to receive more air navigation data than our nation's air traffic controllers.
The DSR platform will enable the incorporation of tools like conflict probe known as User-Requested Evaluation Tool, URET, which automates the paper progress strips. Specifically, paper flight progress strips are replaced with an electronic flight list on a 21-inch flat panel monitor. URET also provides a long-term conflict probe to help controllers make more informed decisions.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
However, URET requires a complete set of navigational data rather than the limited information provided by an en route center's HOSCR. Therefore, the URET program is purchasing navigational data from Jeppsen, a private corporation. Ironically, Jeppsen receives its data free from the Federal Government and builds databases to sell to the aviation committee—I'm sorry, to the aviation community. Simply put, the Federal Government is buying back its own information in a more useful format.
The need for NATCA's participation in modernization is evident in a recent example concerning installation of keyboard video display terminals at the Boston En Route Center. These keyboards would allow for controllers to enter strip and flight data information into the Host computer when the center is operating in its backup radar system. The agency had told Bill Johannes, who is with me here today, that it was impossible to have the software adapted to accommodate these pieces of equipment for anywhere between one to three months after controllers were to begin using the equipment operationally. Mr. Johannes, not accepting the agency's word, attempted to resolve this issue many different ways but was continually stonewalled by management.
With no alternative, Mr. Johannes solicited assistance from the national DSR liaison, Mr. DeBoard. What Mr. DeBoard found was that no software adaptation was required, the KDVTs were plug and play. In essence, without these NATCA representatives participating in seeking answers, the agency would have accepted a minimum 30-day delay of implementation because of stonewalling and misinformation.
There's much to be done in the modernization effort, and NATCA clearly wants to remain an active participant early on in the development and the deployment of these systems. DSR is a perfect example of where—I'm sorry, additional costs could have been avoided if controller input had taken place in the early stages.
In closing, I would like to again thank the members of the Subcommittee for allowing NATCA to testify on FAA modernization and the Display System Replacement, and I would like to thank President McCarthy for hosting this event.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Blake. Mr. Johannes, I know you don't have a formal statement, but is there anything you wish to add at this time?
Mr. JOHANNES. No, I have no statement to make, but I would be happy to answer any questions from the Committee members.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. We'll entertain the first questions at this time from Mr. Bass.
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I guess the first question I have for Dr. Dillingham is, can you give us the benefit of your observations concerning Mr. Blake's testimony in discussing these handouts with reference to— you heard his testimony.
Your testimony that you gave was a glowing analysis of the DSR system and how it's working, it's ahead of schedule and so forth. Mr. Blake has not found fault with the work that's been done to date, but has some concerns about other aspects of the program.
Can you comment on his testimony, the last couple pages of it, sir, that he has?
Dr. DILLINGHAM. I don't think that I disagree with Mr. Blake. Part of what we said early on is that the FAA needs to work with the users, particularly the air traffic controllers as they start to develop and deploy the systems.
With regard to the actual operation of the DSR, what we are saying is that DSR provides a platform for further modernization. There aren't, to any great extent new capabilities or functions being added to it, that has been a real problem with the FAA, particularly in developing and adding software that makes the equipment run. We're talking just hardware here. So I don't disagree with his basic premise.
In terms of what navigation information is available to controllers versus what someone can get off the Internet, I can't really comment on that part.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BASS. Do you think the information that the flight controllers have at their disposal is adequate?
Dr. DILLINGHAM. I couldn't comment on that aspect. A controller would be better equipped to answer that.
Mr. BASS. The flight data processing software has not changed since 1972, but has DSR changed that flight processing software or not?
Dr. DILLINGHAM. It does not change that software. It is, in fact, just a platform for additional enhancements. Again, our work with FAA is that software is one of the crush points, so to speak, of getting the software to work and getting it in a timely fashion.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Blake, why do you think that flight traffic controllers would need all of this detailed information about specific airports such as you can get off of the Internet?
Mr. BLAKE. This is flight critical information, sir. Particularly in case of an emergency, an aircraft has a problem, we need to have as much information available to us as possible so we can adequately handle that flight and provide it the best service possible to return it to an airport it may have overflown or to just provide information to a user, whoever the person or persons, airlines using our system.
Mr. BASS. Can't you use the AOP data or something, the user manual that's available for ten or eleven dollars, and just like every pilot's required to have it in his airplane—not required, excuse me, usually has it?
Mr. BLAKE. Yes, sir, it would be great to have that information readily available for us because there is an abundance of information. Especially as an en route controller, we handle many airports in our sectors, and we may not be able to recall all of the information instantaneously. We need to have that very readily available to us so we can actually access that information in a time-critical situation.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BASS. Mr. Challan, do you have any comments about anything you've just heard?
Mr. CHALLAN. I would like to say that, for purposes of the record, I had been the integrated product team leader for the FAA's en route systems development, in addition to the air traffic control system that you saw today, one of the other programs that I had was the Display System Replacement as well as the Display Channel Replacement, the DCR. So I'm pretty familiar with a lot of this.
I think that we had an awful lot of controllers' support as we developed DSR, but I do agree with Mr. Blake that we did find specifically 21 items out of an operational test evaluation that were problems. We completed that evolution on July 3rd of 1997. And we worked very, very hard under the direction of Monte Belger, our Associate Administrator for Air Traffic Services, and Randy Schwitz who is the national vice-president for NATCA on prioritizing and implementing a gradual set of fixes for problems.
We have in the past and we will continue on a national level to do the prioritization in trying to get the most important things the air traffic controllers' workforce require into place as soon as possible.
Mr. BASS. Now, last question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Certainly.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Challan, in 1972 I was 20 years old. I didn't—I was a student at Dartmouth College, and we had basic training on the basic language on the computer. Microsoft hadn't even been founded for ten years. And the FAA developed the software package to control whether or not Boston, at least, completed its 2 million flight operations.
Can you give us an overview as to what the plans are for FAA modernization on the software side of the computer program; what benefits might accrue not only to the flight controllers and the facilities but also the ability of the system to handle the increasing—ever-increasing workload which we see?
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CHALLAN. I think I can be pretty responsive to your question. Number one is that the Display System Replacement we saw today does over 800,000 lines of developed software that supports the display channels and display system, the monitoring control for that system. So that is a huge amount of software that has been integrated in the system.
Second, while I agree with NATCA the basic functionality of the software has not changed, there have been many incremental changes to that software over the years. But they're right, basically the computer software has not changed. With the new Host computer software we have today, we have a much higher speed processor and we are focused on a couple of functional enhancements to provide controllers better tools. One is URET, which Mr. Blake had mentioned which will provide projectory analysis and flight conflict resolution for the controllers and feedback into the computer. But additionally we have with the new Host, we have the ability to departmentalize some of the processing.
And what we're doing right now is working with Massachusetts Institute of Technology to work on something called dynamic sector re-sectoring so that we can do some balancing of the workload. It's just a few years off. We're working aggressively on it and we're working very closely with NATCA on that.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you, Congressman Bass. We're going to go to Congressman Baldacci.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank all of you for being here and thank the people at Boston, the center, for the terrific job that they're doing also.
Dr. Dillingham, you stated in your testimony that the GAO was in a review of FAA's investment management approach, that that needed to be improved. What are some of the improvements that need to be made there?
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Dr. DILLINGHAM. Congressman, as a part of FAA's acquisition process there is what we call investment management, and we took a pretty comprehensive look at it. We found that FAA has all of the necessary ingredients in terms of determining what projects need to be done and a process for determining that projects are cost-effective and then following through with implementation. What they don't have and what they haven't been able to do up to this point is to sort of measure the progress to make sure that all those processes that they have in place are in fact responding the way they should.
As we pointed out, we made recommendations to try and address that. FAA concurred with our recommendations and are in the process of doing that now.
Mr. BALDACCI. You know, Peter, in regards to the FAA, just looking at the DSR implementation for the projects and seeing where Boston Center was placed, and in terms of not really being given any more priority in terms of the demands and needs of the system versus other areas, how do you sort of earmark the priorities for project and equipment improvements and modernization, you know, and how is it that this center was not given a higher priority?
Mr. CHALLAN. We have what we call a waterfall, which is a schedule that you see. We call it a waterfall because it kind of trickles down on the calendar.
We work with the regions, the sites, and naturally we try to get a perspective of where is equipment needed most critically. And we also base it on many other things; we base it on facility staffing, we base it on the ability of the center to be ready physically to accept the equipment.
The reason Boston moved down in the waterfall was because physically we were able to accelerate the site modernization to be able to accept it into the facility.
But the way we're doing it now on new programs such as STARS, we worked very, very closely with both NATCA and Mr. Bass to develop the sites, so as you saw on the chart, the TRACON facilities, the first sites were San Antonio, Texas and Syracuse, New York. And we chose those in collaboration with NATCA.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BALDACCI. Right. But Peter, I guess the point is that there had been several outages in Boston Center, and as far as FAA had been concerned, that there hadn't been any higher priority given to the modernization. And the modernization and the expedience of it, according to the people I listened to today, were telling me basically that they've sort of come in on weekend, midnight shifts and whatever, and they're going to make this thing work faster, at the point where they're going to get it on line even though they're given more time to get it on line because they know how important it is.
So why isn't FAA's administration structure, why didn't it give it a higher priority than what it has already received?
Mr. CHALLAN. I guess in balance, Congressman, it's a look from the system perspective, and I don't have a really good answer for you except that we look at the waterfall nationally and we make adjustments. This facility was accelerated.
We do very much appreciate the site's aggressiveness in moving forward with the Display System Replacement. What we're trying to do on our side nationally is be as responsive as possible by providing both national resources and support to the prime contractor who is Lockheed Martin. We've had them on site early in the game, and we've provided a lot of additional support.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Congressman Baldacci. I guess one important message here should be that all of those who are flying in this region in the Boston En Route Center are going to be flying with air traffic controllers' safeguarded equipment that is coming in under budget and ahead of schedule, and it's a good message. We all know how quickly in this day and age some of this—some of these equipment have become outdated. But Dr. Dillingham, you basically have given a glowing report on this DSR implementation program, and we heard good things from the center.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
What are the—what do you think are the root causes or the basic reasons we've had these delays and cost overruns and these problems? They tell me that STARS is about four years off, four years behind schedule, and there have been problems with the AAS and NAS. And apparently there is waste and we've lost billions on some of these other modernization efforts, and this seems to be what we've heard this morning a bit. What are the differences?
Dr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the biggest differences is what we all said up here this morning, and that is, FAA instead of trying to do it all at once, they are now doing a little bit at a time to make sure that what they're doing works. And equally important, even though FAA may not have gotten NATCA involved early enough, they got them involved earlier in the process than they had with some other agency modernization equipment.
When you talk about STARS, one of the major problems with the STARS is that as it has moved down the line; the human factor element was not properly attended to and the air traffic controllers were not consulted early enough in that process.
FAA now has in place a chief information officer, and one of that person's responsibilities is software. Software has always been the soft underbelly of the ATC modernization. Everyone knows about the advanced automation system and that we spent a lot of money on but it never came to fruition, and a part of that was lack of contractor oversight. FAA now has new procurement authority which allows them if a contractor is not performing, the FAA can quickly change that contractor and move out.
So there are lots of things that apply to DSR, that if in fact FAA supervises the modernization, one would think that, you know, we will see more projects on time and under budget as well.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Challan, how much do you think the FAA will need money-wise to complete the modernization efforts that are presently being employed? Do you have any rough guess, ballpark figure?
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CHALLAN. No, sir, I don't. I would guess that the information that the GAO has provided is fairly accurate.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you this: This briefing material that I've been provided for—actually, more for our hearing later this week says that according to the Department of Transportation inspector general, schedule flights have increased on 75 percent of the 200 business routes over the last ten years. Despite this, delays have grown worse.
I know the Wall Street Journal a few months ago had a report that with regard to that 75 percent figure, it says in July, Continental Airlines reported they had 222 aircraft delayed in Newark alone, American Airlines reports they had to cancel or delay 2,645 flights in the first six months of the year. On May 17th they cancelled 300 flights at DFW and 500 system-wide. The situation had gotten so bad they sent out letters of apology, many of these to frequent fliers. United now reports it has cancelled or delayed 4,677 flights to O'Hare in the first six months of the year; it also sent letters of apology. I could go on and on. It says the past year's delays are said to cost the economy over $4 billion annually and result in passengers being late 28,000 hours each day.
Why in spite of the airlines increasing their flight times, why are we having more and more and more delays after all these billions and billions and billions of dollars invested in new equipment?
Mr. CHALLAN. Well, sir, I'll make a few short comments, and I know that the Administrator's scheduled to appear before your Committee this Thursday on delays, and I don't want to get into her testimony.
Mr. DUNCAN. I don't want you getting into trouble, so.
Mr. CHALLAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. A lot of what you're seeing here today, as NATCA stated, is not functionality necessarily but it is replacing the infrastructure. What you saw today is a modern platform for us to move to—getting additional functionality such as URET, when we bring it on the floor here in the Nashua Center, we don't add additional functionality, it's basically infrastructure. An awful lot of that, for instance, the voice switching control system, you saw the touch screens—.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, just so we talk in plain language here, when you say a lot of it has not increased in functionality, it's just making things more modern, are you saying that even with all of this investment—you surely aren't saying that things aren't getting better, that—.
Mr. CHALLAN. Oh, no, sir. I'm sorry. That's not the connotation. It is clearly more available, reliable. I honestly expected Congressman Baldacci to reference the outages and interruption of service we had previously experienced. We are currently experiencing outages on a much, much more infrequent basis. So we have a lot more stable system, a lot more reliable, and I think it provides a platform for the future.
Mr. DUNCAN. I think you said a lot more stable system and a lot more what? I didn't hear you.
Mr. CHALLAN. Reliable.
Mr. DUNCAN. Reliable. OK. Let me ask the controllers, do the controllers feel that the DSR equipment will allow them to handle the increased numbers of planes or do things better or is it just going to make your jobs more pleasant? Is it going to help improve the system, or what's the situation?
Mr. JOHANNES. Mr. Chairman, at this point I believe the system, as Mr. Challan said, is just a replacement. It is not adding any great technological improvements or abilities to help us do our job better; it's a little fancier equipment. There is that capability there, and it is scheduled to come on line. It's sort of a shell now of what it can be.
Mr. BLAKE. Do you mind if I add to that?
Mr. DUNCAN. Sure.
Mr. BLAKE. Mr. Chairman, additionally the functionality will improve. We'll be able to have more tools that are going to allow us, our assistant controllers, it's going to help us in resolving air traffic control situations ahead of time so we will be I think in—there will be some system enhancements. Right now it is just simply a new platform.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But I did want to address the earlier question that you posed to Mr. Challan specifically around air traffic control delays, and I too don't want to get in trouble by any testimony that Mr. McNally will be providing you on Thursday; however, I believe that it is a crucial time for aviation in this country in the fact that the system has become saturated to the point where the nation's air traffic control system controllers that I represent are very busy individuals, they are doing the best that they can with the amount of traffic that they are handling. The infrastructure in the system needs to be addressed as far as where actually to put aircraft.
You're going to be shown displays this Thursday that show, I believe, Atlanta Hartsfield Airport and the amount of traffic that goes in there, and how there are times when those airports are over-scheduled, in fact, and that there are just too many aircraft to actually be able to land or arrive and park at those airports at specified times. So it has gotten very busy in the air traffic control system, and I believe the infrastructure is part of that issue.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, of course all of you know legislation called Air 21, which we go to conference in a few days with the Senate. If we put that through; we will have the greatest increase in investment in aviation infrastructure in the history of this country.
I was conferring with counsel at one point and I heard almost all of your testimony, Mr. Blake, but I think I did catch at one point towards the end you said something about how people have stonewalled Mr. Johannes, or you used some other word I think too.
Mr. BLAKE. Yes, sir. It was specifically around a piece of equipment called a keyboard video display terminal. It was a piece of equipment that the air traffic controllers use in their backup system, backup radar systems, and enter critical flight plan data into the Host computer directly. And unfortunately, the agency was under the impression it would take three months to build software to adapt to additional controller workstations in each area, and in fact that was not the case. They were simply plug and play pieces of equipment that could have just been plugged in and used immediately. Fortunately, we were able to get to the bottom of that. We have our own informational resources that are working with the agency on the national level that provided us other information, so we were able to bypass that three-month, or 30-day to three-month delay as far as the implementation.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It actually would have pushed back the IOC, or actually have prevented us from having gone into the new room for anywhere from 30 days to three months.
Mr. DUNCAN. You heard Dr. Dillingham say, and we even know that the controllers have been more involved in the development of this new equipment than at any time, any other modernization effort. Is that true or not true from your standpoint?
Mr. BLAKE. Yes, it is. And in fact, that saved us with that three-month delay because we actually had our own resources that we were working with the agency to provide us with the information so that we could let the local implementation teams know that we were going to—we would not have a 30-day delay. So we were able to have that information available to us nationally. Unfortunately, the information wasn't shared down through the normal chain back to our facility in time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask all of you to—if you want to comment on this, but Mr. Blake, do you have—you have some handouts which show that you can get a lot more information off the Internet than you can out of all the equipment, all of this huge investment that taxpayers have made.
When I first became chairman of this Subcommittee in 1995, one of the early hearings that we held, we held three days of hearings on a proposal by the administration to set up a new air traffic control corporation, government corporation, and there was—there was great—there was almost total opposition. But Canada and many other countries have in recent years privatized the air traffic control industry.
Mr. Crandall of American Airlines made a major speech, Mr. Bethune of Continental Airlines made a major speech all within the past few weeks or few months saying that we should privatize our air traffic control system because it was the only way out of all of these delays.
What would you say to somebody who says something as little as the fact that you get a lot more information over the Internet than you can out of all your taxpayer-purchased equipment shows that the system should be privatized; how would you respond to that?
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BLAKE. Well, first off, I am not in support of privatization of the air traffic control system. I believe it is inherently governmental and I believe that the United States Government needs to have its hand in the air traffic control system.
What we have seen recently, and I guess what we're striving to by those illustrations I've provided you, is to show that together we have concerns, air traffic controllers, that we are providing to you as well as the agency about what it can improve. One part of the statement that I skipped over because I was running out of time addressed an air traffic evolution team, I believe, which is now a new team that was formed with air traffic and NATCA that is going to help to revolve the system into something that can become more usable to us and provide us with tools that I showed you as illustrations.
As far as the privitization of the nation's air traffic control system, we have found, you know, and I'm sure you're well aware there are entities, the contract tower program, those programs that exist today that we have found inefficiencies in as well as improper training and some issues around staffing that are of great concern to us, and what concerns us also is with privitization of the air traffic control system, who in fact would be in charge of that air traffic control system other than I believe the users themselves? And our organization, NATCA, is very much concerned with the safety of the system as well.
So there is a dual role, safety and efficiency. We understand the efficiency in allowing air traffic to move as quickly as possible, but we are very concerned with the safety issue.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, you pointed out to us a lot of problems, though. Have things gotten better, let's say, over the last five years? Are you seeing any improvements?
Mr. BLAKE. Oh, yes, I believe there are improvements. I guess—.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. I mean, we keep seeing all of this computer equipment, and I understand we don't have much invested but we keep hearing from the controllers of all of the planes. And what I'm saying, is there a positive side, are there some good things that are going on? Let's hear you say something good and modest for a minute.
Mr. BLAKE. Well, as a controller at Boston Center, I can tell you that there are a lot of good things that are going on there. We were originally last on the waterfall, and I'm not sure if you're aware of that or not, but we were Number 20 as far as the centers go.
The facility was able to improve, they certainly increased the time frame and moved up operationally. We worked through some very hard times locally regarding environmental issues that I know Congressman Bass is aware of, and as a result of that and actually the agency working with NATCA and coming up with alternative ways to try to get DSR into that building more quickly, we were able to work through that.
So this is a very important, and it should be a very celebratory time for Boston Center in the fact that we were able to accelerate our time frame to get into the control room because you saw what it looked like today. It was time to move. But yes, it is positive, it is a good time for Boston Center.
Mr. DUNCAN. How long do you think it's going to take a typical controller to get adjusted to this equipment? I assume that you can tell us that you do not think that air traffic will be affected at all during this switch-over, or can you tell us that?
Mr. BLAKE. The facility has taken some new steps, and I'd like Mr. Johannes to address that when I'm done. We've taken some innovative steps, I believe, to provide the implementation during less busier times to minimize any delays that may be as a result of trying to work on the new equipment. I yesterday took three guys and went over a problem myself and was able to try to muddle my way through that. I was—I did spend a lot of head-down time trying to find the new switches, the switchology, but I believe that the new system will be able to provide—well, we'll be able to pick up right where we left off in minimal time.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. You've created a new word, I think, switchology. Switchology. Yes, Mr. Johannes?
Mr. BLAKE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. JOHANNES. Yes. We expected to be fully up to the level we're at now some time by Thanksgiving or shortly thereafter. We've taken a collaborative approach to transitioning sectors, as Mr. Blake had said, at different times that gives us an outlet where if we're restricted in several areas because of the new transition and the new equipment and controllers having to work less airplanes initially due to the head-down time, we'll be able to route them around some of those bottleneck points so that we can keep our customers flying.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. I raised a lot of points, Mr. Challan. Do you have any comments on anything that I touched on?
Mr. CHALLAN: Probably too many, but I'll give you just a couple, sir. One of them is that the facility here, both NATCA and the facility management have worked with the airline community and all of the broader community on scheduling of the DSR transition. There's been an awful lot of coordination. They can read on flow rates into Boston, Logan of 44 aircraft an hour that they're going to be able to handle. So they've done a lot of work in preparation for this.
All of the controllers have had dynamic simulations that Mr. Blake referred to. That's where they do the dynamic simulation of problems. So they've done a lot of work prior to even going into and we did have some delays, as you know, one of the first base sites, but we learned a lot of lessons. So I think we've done a lot better in preparing for this transition at subsequent sites.
There's one other thing. I think the Administration was very, very encouraged by the each of the air terminals, and the dialogue that is going on right now, and that will resume with the House and the Senate, is very, very positive, and it's giving us a substantial ability to help us manage the funding which is necessary.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One other thing: the platform we're installing here, it's a wonderful platform technology-wise, having the screens. We worked very, very hard with that controller work group; right now some of the members are over in Europe looking at something called ODES, which has a lot of seemingly very adaptable computer-human interface. We will have worked and will continue to work very, very hard with NATCA as our partner in modernization as we continue to prioritize functional systems.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. Thank you very much. Dr. Dillingham, do you believe these problems we're having with air traffic delays at this time are more because of the modernization problems or more because of interface problems or is it 50/50? Or what's your feeling on that, and do you think things will get better next year or in five years from now or are you going to go before an aviation Subcommittee and tell us that delays have increased and things have gotten worse, or what do you see on the horizon?
Dr. DILLINGHAM. I hope I'm not back five years from now saying the same thing I'm saying now.
Mr. DUNCAN. I hope so too.
Dr. DILLINGHAM. But five years ago I was saying the same thing. I don't want to get in trouble over the delays either, but in any case, the best information we have is that the air traffic control equipment is a very small part of it. It's the combination of air traffic control equipment, schedule, weather, and scheduling by airlines. You know, just the mass increase of flights that we have now. So I think it's a combination of things. And exactly how it breaks out, I don't really know.
The other part of your question about whether things have gotten better, I think things have gotten better, but I think a realization is that some of the mistakes of the past have caused us to be delayed in improving air traffic control; that some of the monies we spent, some of the systems we bought, or attempted to buy have not come to fruition, and we've had to put in some interim systems and it has backed us up.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We're now with a new administrator, and I think with the fixed term of five years, I think we have a better opportunity to—as Mr. Blake said, change the wheels as the car is going. So we're optimistic because of some of the things that your Subcommittee has done and some of the things that are happening at FAA that things will increasingly get better.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Bass?
Mr. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Between August 1, 1996, and January 5, 1999, there were 14 major outages at the Boston Center. I have a couple of questions. Perhaps, Mr. Challan, you can answer these.
Is that more or less than the average for all of the centers throughout the country?
Mr. CHALLAN. I apologize to you, sir. I don't know, but we could get you that information.
Mr. BASS. A major outage is defined as one that is 15 minutes or greater. How many total number of outages were there? Are you prepared to answer that?
Mr. CHALLAN. No, sir, I am not.
Mr. BASS. Can you get that answer for the record, and also how that corresponds with the national average? I was interested that the FAA has moved the Boston Center up the priority list which is good.
Now, are major outages generally associated with equipment failure or electricity failures, software failure, hardware failure, weather? What in general—or maybe the GAO has done a study of this. What causes major outages and minor outages?
Mr. CHALLAN. Almost all of the above.
Mr. BASS. How would you rate—if you don't know the answer, perhaps Dr. Dillingham can give us some idea.
Mr. CHALLAN. I don't have the exact statistics, but having been in the development community and now the operational community, the vast majority of outages are related to software.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BASS. So although there have been—there are—in fact, carrying on from my earlier line of question, there have been improvements to software since 1972 but the fundamental system hasn't changed.
Now, any outage obviously is a significant crisis. It all relates back to the issue of software. Is the FAA giving adequate attention dealing with this issue which I think is manifested most significantly in outages—an outage? You have an outage, that is a single failure. And if software is the root cause, are we doing what we need to do to address issues or improvements to software?
Mr. CHALLAN. Yes, we are. Specifically, several of the teams inside FAA are working with intergrated product teams to enhance their software. The ICMM, that's the national standard for managed software. We have teams that Chairman Duncan saw; I was privileged to meet the Chairman at the FAA Center. We saw some of the support system that's there from a national perspective. And we work very, very hard and we are increasing to focus the process of testing and driving out software problems before this software is released into the field. So that is something that we are accelerating our efforts on and our focus on.
Mr. BASS. Are there other countries that have developed software program assistance that you might be able to use or learn from, or are we the best?
Mr. CHALLAN. I think we are the best, sir, but I don't have any data to support that. But from my perspective, I think the performance of the national airspace system having the availability of 99.97 percent, that's three one-hundredths of a percent off the total available system, is a very high standard. It doesn't mean we can't learn from what other countries do.
I've learned some very interesting things a couple of weeks ago. As I said, we're working with NATCA over in Europe right now.
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. Mr. Baldacci?
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you for being here today at the college. I guess in just reviewing and recapping for our hearing on Thursday in Washington, I guess the information as it pertains to platform versus functionality, maybe I need a refresher course on the technical aspects of that, and also in terms of the management practices in place at FAA. I want to commend Administrator Garvey in her leadership and what she's undertaken, because it has been a welcome effort, and I want to make sure that that point is made. We have a lot of work to do, we've got to do it together, and I'm pleased that you're working in a cooperative fashion because I think that's what's going to bring about the best results.
I am pleased that you're prioritizing the projects better than had been in the past, and also, look forward to further improvements. You know, it's—you know, it's very important the Boston Center is well served because of the number of passengers and flight travel that goes through, and at the same time, if we're going to be able to get to Maine safely, then it's important that they have safe and efficient service here in Boston Center.
So I want to thank again the chairman for putting this hearing together with Representative Bass who I enjoy working with together in a bipartisan fashion on our Aviation Subcommittee to make sure that we represent the public interest. I thank all of you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Congressman Baldacci. Let me briefly ask a couple of last questions. Dr. Dillingham, the FAA used to say, and I think still says about 70 percent of air traffic delays are caused by weather. Do you—is that the case? I mean, we really can't do much about the weather, but I mean, is that—do you think that's an accurate assessment?
Dr. DILLINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we have not actually looked at that to determine whether or not that is an accurate assessment at 70 percent. I think that certainly with the Subcommittee being a supporter of and providing more funds to FAA, which in turn will provide an opportunity to get better equipment; i.e., weather-type equipment, if weather is in fact the biggest cause, then there are ways to deal with that.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DUNCAN. Let me ask finally the National Civil Aviation Review Commission in 1997 said we're very close to gridlock in the air. Do you think that is true, and if for some reason we do not pass this Air 21 legislation with a pretty substantial increase and investment in aviation infrastructure, do you think that we will very soon reach some type of gridlock in the air or in our aviation system? Anybody.
Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, Mr. Blake?
Mr. BLAKE. Well, I certainly can address that, Mr. Chairman, is that I believe that there are times gridlock to me, there are times when the air traffic system at sites such as Atlanta, I believe, which you'll see on Thursday, you'll find that there simply is nowhere to put more air traffic or aircraft during periods of the Hub system than scheduling the airline performance. I think there is an opportunity there, it's not all the time, but there are times during the day that we get very close to that gridlock.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Challan?
Mr. CHALLAN. Under Administrator Garvey's leadership, we've been working very, very, very closely, and especially at heightened activity level since August 6th and 7th with the commercial airlines as represented by the ATA. As Dr. Dillingham testified, there are a lot of things we've done to try to minimize the impact of whether our delays, like you say, are due to bad weather. But we're doing a lot to minimize that.
I honestly believe aviation has a real challenge here in managing increasing volume especially in the officers' fleet. We're working with NATCA and the airlines on, for instance, on how to manage the next season's convective weather system. It is a challenge, I have to tell you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, all right. Thank you very much. Since I've been the chairman of this Subcommittee I've always thought it was a very valuable thing to get out and around the country and not just stay in Washington all the time, but to come out and see what is going on within our aviation system.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It touches on many—it has many different parts to it, and this field here is very, very valuable. I do remember going to Seattle one time and we had over 1,000 demonstrators demonstrating against a proposed third runway, and that was an interesting—they weren't demonstrating against us, but they were against that runway. So we've gotten a very warm reception here today, and I appreciate it.
And Congressman Bass, if you would like to call the meeting to a close.
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Dr. Dillingham of the GAO, Mr. Challan of the FAA and Mr. Blake of the Air Traffic Controllers Association for taking the time to appear here today. Of course this has been very helpful, and it's very helpful given we're having this type of hearing later in the week we as Committee Members have a fairly good idea right now as to how the system is knitted together. And I've already thought of some interesting things to discuss about the whole issue of delays and weather and pressure on the systems and controllers and software and so on, and that should be helpful on Thursday.
And I'm also really proud to be a representative for the Boston En Route Traffic Control Center. As a pilot 30 years this year and having had an instrument rating since 1976, I'm so glad that none of you really know that sometimes I'm the guy on the other end. Therefore, I've never made any mistakes or failed to follow instructions, but do understand the problems of the flight controllers.
To my colleagues, Congressman Baldacci and Chairman Duncan, I'd liked to present both of you with a little symbol of my gratitude for your being willing to take time on Columbus Day to get—this is New Hampshire maple syrup to keep you all sweet.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.
Mr. BALDACCI. Thank you for your hospitality.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. And I would like to once again thank all the panel for being with us. You were very informative today. Thanks to all of those in the audience who have taken time to be with us also.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And that will conclude this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[insert here]