SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
77–951PS
2002
A REVIEW OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MARCH 7, 2002
Serial No. 107–67
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
NICK SMITH, Michigan
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DAVE WELDON, Florida
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FELIX J. GRUCCI, JR., New York
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
BART GORDON, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
MARK UDALL, Colorado
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
JOE BACA, California
JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE ISRAEL, New York
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics
DANA ROHRABACHER, California, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
JOE BARTON, Texas
KEN CALVERT, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DAVE WELDON, Florida
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR., Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GARY G. MILLER, California
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
BART GORDON, Tennessee
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
ZOE LOFGREN, California
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
MARK UDALL, Colorado
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DAVID WU, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
WILLIAM B. ADKINS Subcommittee Staff Director
ED FEDDEMAN Professional Staff Member
RUBEN VAN MITCHELL Professional Staff Member
CHRIS SHANK Professional Staff Member
RICHARD OBERMANN Democratic Professional Staff Member
AMANDA PARSONS Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 7, 2002
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Written Statement
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives
Prepared Statement of the Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of the Honorable John B. Larson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut
Written Statement
Witness List
Hearing Charter
Panel
Mr. Samuel L. Venneri, Associate Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Mr. Steven B. Zaidman, Associate Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Mr. Richard S. Golaszewski, Executive Vice President, GRA, Inc.
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. David Swain, Chief Technology Officer, The Boeing Company
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Dr. John F. Cassidy, Jr., Senior Vice President, Science and Technology, United Technologies Research Center
Oral Statement
Written Statement
Biography
Discussion
NASA Research and Development Investments in Aeronautics
Direction of NASA Research
Human-Machine Interface
NASA Investment in Human Factors
NASA-University Research Collaboration
FAA-University Research Collaboration
Aeronautics Blueprint
International Competition
NASA Investment in Aeronautics Research and Development
Budget Versus Blueprint
International Competition
Research and Development Portfolio—Near-Term Versus Long-Term
Corporate Welfare
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Airport Security
Airport Noise
Stage Four
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers submitted by Mr. Samuel L. Venneri, Associate Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Answers submitted by Mr. Steven B. Zaidman, Associate Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
Answers submitted by Mr. Richard S. Golaszewski, Executive Vice President, GRA, Inc.
Answers submitted by Mr. David Swain, Chief Technology Officer, The Boeing Company
Answers submitted by Dr. John F. Cassidy, Jr., Senior Vice President, Science and Technology, United Technologies Research Center
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by the Aviation Coalition
Statement submitted by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A REVIEW OF CIVIL AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dana Rohrabacher [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. I hereby call this meeting of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee to order. And without objection, the Chair will be granted authority to recess this hearing at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
Today's hearing—and today, as we have this hearing, we—it will provide us an opportunity to examine our government's investments and strategy for its research, engineering, and development programs concerning aeronautics. First and foremost, improvements in aeronautics have allowed us to travel safely and affordably over great distances and has sustained U.S. leadership in civil aviation for almost 60 years. The tremendous benefits we derive from civil aviation have made it a major segment of our economy, and therefore, should not be taken lightly. And we should, thus, value research in aeronautics and not take it for granted, as well. The public's demand for air transportation increases, and, as it does, so must government's commitment to supporting the long-term development and growth of this vital segment of our national economy.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The dramatic increase in air traffic anticipated for the Nation's hub airports and the pace of foreign competition prompt calls for reshaping how our aerospace industry operates in the current global market. Air travel is an integral part of everyone's life because of this country's success in civil aviation. This record is equally matched by civil aviation's support for commerce. Thus, aviation touches everyone in some way—the traveler, as well as those people who are doing business throughout our country. We must continue to hold NASA and the FAA responsible for safe and reliable air transportation so that the confidence of the American people in air travel is assured.
That said, NASA and the FAA must aggressively lead the way in aeronautical research and for improving civil aviation.
Our Panel today will inform us of ongoing efforts to improve aeronautical research and for achieving a more safe and—or, should I say, safer and a more secure air transportation system. I would like now to recognize Bart Gordon, Ranking Minority Member, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rohrabacher follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DANA ROHRABACHER
Today's hearing will provide an opportunity for us to examine our government's investments and strategy for its research, engineering and development programs concerning aeronautics. First and foremost, improvements in aeronautics have allowed us to travel safely and affordably over great distances and sustained U.S. leadership in civil aviation for nearly 60 years. The tremendous benefits we derive from civil aviation have made it a major segment of our economy, and therefore, we should not take research in aeronautics for granted. As the public's demand for air transportation increases so must our government's commitment for supporting the long-term development and growth of this vital segment of our national economy.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The dramatic increase in air traffic anticipated for the Nation's hub airports and the pace of foreign competition prompt calls for reshaping how our aerospace industry operates in the current global market. Air travel is an integral part of everyone's life because of this country's successful track record in civil aviation. This record is equally matched by civil aviation's support of commerce. Thus, aviation touches everyone. We must continue to hold NASA and the FAA responsible for safe and reliable air transportation so that the confidence of the American people in air travel is assured. That said, NASA and the FAA must aggressively lead the way in aeronautical research for improving civil aviation.
Our panel today will inform us of on-going efforts to improve aeronautical research for achieving a more secure and safe air transportation system.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I want to welcome all of our witnesses to today's hearing. I look forward to your testimony. Today's hearing is an important one for the Subcommittee. America has long been the world leader in both civil and military aviation. And that leadership has been built on a foundation of investments in research and development, both public and private. However, there have been some troubling indications that that leadership is in jeopardy.
While our military aircraft seem to be—seem to have no equal, our commercial aircraft are facing tough competition from Europe and elsewhere. The Nation's air traffic management system seems to be just about at its capacity, with flight delays growing and public dissatisfaction at an all-time high. And there is a growing feeling that we need to do more to make our aviation fleets safer, quieter, and more fuel efficient.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the same time that all these challenges exist, funding for NASA aeronautics R&D is continuing to decline. The Administration's request for fiscal year 2003 is little more than b what was being spent on aeronautics R&D in 1998. And the Administration's 5-year spending plan would keep aeronautics essentially flat-funded over the next five years. Is that a good idea?
I would like our witnesses to let us know what they think the impact of the funding approach will be on the American aviation industry. I would also like them to address what they think needs to be done to fix the Nation's air traffic management system, and whether the Administration's budget will get this done or get us where we would like to be.
Finally, both the airplanes and the air traffic management systems are becoming even more advanced technologically. At the end of the day, though, it will be people that will have to operate those technologies, advanced planes, and air traffic systems. I would like the witnesses to tell me what we need to do to ensure that pilots and controllers will have the right training and skills to operate these advanced new systems.
Well, we have got a lot to cover today. Once again, I want to thank you for your attendance, and I look forward to your testimony.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Bart. And with your permission, I will give the other members who are here, seeing there is only two of them, a chance. But first I would like to welcome Randy Forbes. This is a new Member of Congress. This is his first meeting on this Subcommittee. Randy, thank you very much for joining our Subcommittee, and we are looking forward to working with you. Would you like to say a couple of words?
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FORBES. Just that I am excited to be here. I think the work that you are doing here is going to be very vital, both to the Commonwealth of Virginia, certainly, and the efforts that we have there, but also to the country. So it is a great pleasure to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forbes follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. RANDY FORBES
Thank you Chairman Rohrabacher, and Ranking Member Gordon, for holding this important hearing today. And, I thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee this morning. On a side note, two weeks ago I had the privilege of touring NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. I can tell you that I left the Kennedy Space Center with a greater appreciation for the fine work of NASA and it's employees.
Last month the President presented his budget to Congress for the fiscal year 2003. Within the President's budget, he proposed a modest increase in NASA's funding for next year, however, his budget also proposes to reduce the level of aeronautics R&D investment at NASA by $58 million below FY02 appropriated levels. I am concerned that continual erosion of funding for Civil Aeronautics Research & Development will leave NASA unable to fulfill is mission and aeronautics vision.
I must also voice my concern for the impact theses deep cuts will have on NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, VA. While the Langley Research Center is just outside my district, the facility does employ many of my constituents.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NASA's Langley Research Center was established in 1917 as the Nation's first civilian aeronautics laboratory. Today, 70 percent of its work is in aeronautics research, focusing on ways to improve current aircraft and develop concepts for future aircraft. In fact, the Center's primary mission assignments are devoted to structures and materials, airframe systems, and atmospheric sciences. NASA Langley leads the agency in aviation safety, quiet aircraft technology, small aircraft transportation, and aerospace vehicles systems technology.
I regard the work of the facility and its employees to be invaluable in forging new frontiers in aviation and space research. Langley's contributions to aerospace, atmospheric sciences, and technology commercialization are improving the way the world lives. Its research has a significant impact on the global economy, making the skies safer, quieter and more efficient.
I fully understand and recognize that many of our priorities have shifted since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, and that our economy has slowed down—resulting in lower revenues to the Federal Government. We should not, however, ask NASA Langley to bear the brunt of this short fall. If we were to do so, we would be killing the goose that lays a golden egg.
I look forward to working with the President and Administrator O'Keefe to see that the NASA Langley Research center receives the funding it so richly deserves.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. We are looking forward to having you as an active member. And if you can be half as active as John Larson from Connecticut—I mean this guy is here—not only here, but he is always punching away and he—this is his issue. And we have been waiting for this for a while. So, surely, you have a couple words of wisdom you would like to start out with.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly do. And, first of all, let me thank the panelists for being here this morning. And, as both the Chair and the Ranking Member have indicated, we look forward to your testimony. And I am particularly delighted that John Cassidy from UTRC is here today. I have had the fortunate opportunity to work with Dr. Cassidy over the last several years. And he has my profound respect, and I think that of his colleagues in the industry.
Mr. Chairman, you are right. This is an issue that concerns me, but I think one that concerns all of America. This Committee had the opportunity last year to travel to Europe to see the air show. And at that air show, we got a very unique demonstration of the competition that truly exists out there. Plus, we—also, we were able to hear from our European counterparts about 2020 and about their vision, really, to supplant and take over the market in commercial airlines by the year 2020.
And this is something that we can't take lightly and something that I know that members of this Committee share the same kind of a deep concern in how we address these matters. So I have some brief statements that, when the time comes, Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record, and then look forward to the testimony here this morning and the give and take. And thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN B. LARSON
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, aerospace programs and technology in the United States has reached a pinnacle of success and development unparalleled in world history. Since World War II, not one U.S. land combatant has been killed by an enemy tactical fighter, and the strength of the U.S. aerospace industrial base has been inextricably linked to the overall success of our armed forces since President Roosevelt first called for an unprecedented annual production of 50,000 military aircraft in May of 1940. Today, the aerospace industrial base is at a critical juncture as we open the 21st Century, and I hope to see it remain a prominent symbol of American technological achievement, economic strength, and military success.
That is why I continue to be concerned by the declining trend in aerospace R&D funding. This budget continues the trend by reducing NASA R&D funding by $58 million and FAA R&D by $20.2 million. At the same time, the European Union released a report in January of 2001 entitled European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020 that lays out an ambitious R&D agenda for European dominance of aeronautics and aviation.
I understand that the Congressionally authorized Presidential Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry has begun its work. I hope the content of these hearings will be helpful as they continue their important work, because these hearings continue to highlight some very serious trends. For example, the aerospace workforce has been shrinking dramatically and the overall average age of the workforce is at it highest level, there is an increasing loss of market share to foreign competition, there are questions about international trade policies and the effect of government subsidies on the industry as a whole, and questions to be raised about the trends in research and development funding levels in both the public and private sectors.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The work of the Commission is made so much more important given the discrepancies apparent between the long-term plans of our aeronautics agencies and their actual budgets. The Aerospace industrial base is at a critical juncture as we open the 21st Century, and we hope to see it remain a prominent symbol of American technological achievement, economic strength, and military success. I hope we can begin to seriously consider and address these important issues today.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, John. And we also have with us Dennis Moore from Kansas, who is equally active in the Subcommittee and equally concerned about the issue. Dennis, would you like to say a few words?
Mr. MOORE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. It is very important that our country remain competitive. I want to welcome all of the panelists here. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to come and give us your perspective and your expertise in this area. It is very important. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to, again, thank you for convening this hearing, and let us get started if we can.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. Well, we have one more member, Roscoe Bartlett, who is our Ph.D., and Roscoe gives us all personal guidance as to what some of the terminology means when scientists speak before the Subcommittee. Roscoe, do you have a couple of words for us today?
Mr. BARTLETT. I am pleased to be here and look forward to your testimony. Thank you very much for coming.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. The opening statement of other members will be put in the written record so we can go right to the testimony. And hearing no objection, so ordered. The Chairman also requests unanimous consent for the authority to recess this hearing at any point. And hearing no objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent to insert at the appropriate place in the record, the background memorandum prepared by the majority staff for this hearing. And hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
77951a.eps
HEARING CHARTER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
A Review of Civil Aeronautics
Research and Development
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 2002
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.
2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
1. Purpose
On Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 10:00 am. in room 2318 Rayburn, the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics will hold a hearing on the Federal Government's proposed FY03 budget and strategy for aeronautics research. This hearing comes one month after the Administration's public release of its budget proposal and will give Members an opportunity to hear testimony from officials from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on programs and funding for this important area of research. The hearing will also include witnesses from the private sector who will provide a non-government perspective on aviation and aeronautics issues. Information developed at this hearing will help the Committee as it drafts legislation reauthorizing NASA and the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development Program.
2. Issues
Level of Funding. Both NASA and FAA assert that their aeronautics R&D budgets will enable development of new technologies to reduce aviation gridlock, increase the margin of safety for the flying public, and reduce the impact of aviation on the environment. The budget requests for both agencies, however, propose to reduce the level of aeronautics R&D investment—NASA by $58 million; FAA by $20.2 million—below FY02 appropriated levels.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Collaborating with Federal Partners. Over the last several years, NASA has taken on a much more visible role, in collaboration with FAA, developing technologies for a future air traffic control system. In addition, the Department of Defense has co-located researchers at several NASA Research Centers to collaborate on mutually beneficial research projects. How effectively do these collaborations operate? Is there duplication of effort?
Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. In calendar year 2000, the value of U.S. exports of civil and military aerospace products was $54.678 billion. Boeing is our country's largest manufacturing exporter. Foreign civil aircraft manufacturers have made deep inroads into domestic and world markets for commercial jets. During calendar year 2001 Airbus reports that it booked 50 percent of all orders for new large commercial aircraft. Brazilian and Canadian manufacturers dominate the regional jet markets. Do these trends portend a diminishing role for U.S. manufacturers? What role can the federal investment in R&D play to support and advance the U.S. aerospace industry?
3. Witnesses
Mr. Sam Venneri, Associate Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, has been asked to address the following—
Describe NASA's FY03 budget request for Aeronautics and how it supports their new investment roadmap (known as the Aeronautics Blueprint);
Describe how and to what degree NASA consults with industry and academia in setting priorities and implementing programs;
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
New initiatives undertaken by NASA—alone or in collaboration with FAA—following the tragedy of September 11, 2001; and
The collaborative relationship between NASA and FAA in aeronautics research (including air traffic management), and how the agencies establish, coordinate, implement and manage research goals and priorities.
Mr. Steve Zaidman, Associate Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, has been asked to address the following—
FAA's FY2003 budget request for Research, Engineering and Development and how it supports the major thrusts of its strategic research roadmap, the National Aviation Research Plan;
Describe how and to what degree FAA consults with industry and academia in setting priorities and implementing programs;
New initiatives undertaken by FAA—alone or in collaboration with NASA—following the tragedy of September 11, 2001; and
The collaborative relationship between FAA and the Transportation Security Administration with respect to aviation security research and development, and how the agencies establish, coordinate, implement and manage research goals and priorities.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Rich Golaszewski, Executive Vice President, GRA, Inc., is a recognized expert in the areas of aviation economics, safety and public policy. He is involved with many aviation professional associations and is a member of the Aviation Economics and Forecasting Committee of the Transportation Research Board. He has been asked to address the following—
Assess FAA's and NASA's investment strategies and level-of-effort for civil aeronautics research and development, and the usefulness of the resulting technology to serve manufacturers and users of commercial aircraft;
Assess the future of our national airspace system and how well current technologies will help meet this challenge; and
Whether industry-federal aerospace research collaborations are effective in maintaining U.S. leadership in the delivery of new, efficient, and cost-effective aircraft.
Mr. David Swain, Chief Technology Officer, The Boeing Company, has been asked to address the following—
Provide an overview of the greatest challenges facing the aeronautics and aviation industry and what role federal research should play in addressing those challenges.
Provide an assessment of the Administration's FY03 budget request for FAA and NASA aeronautics-related research and development.
Provide his views on the appropriate federal role in aeronautics-related research, the appropriate role for industry-sponsored R&D, and under what circumstances collaborative research is warranted.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Describe the availability and quality of wind-tunnels in the U.S. today, and whether they are sufficient to meet current and future research needs for the development of new generations of large civil and military aircraft.
Dr. John Cassidy, Senior Vice President, Science and Technology, United Technologies Research Center, has been asked to address the following—
Describe the technological challenges in designing and developing engines with significant reductions in noise, emissions, and fuel consumption, as well as increased safety and reliability. Include an assessment of the adequacy of the scope and resources available for current federal and private sector research efforts, particularly in relation to the research investments of foreign competitors.
Discuss the appropriate Federal role in aeronautics-related research, the appropriate role for industry-sponsored R&D, and under what circumstances collaborative research is warranted.
Describe how and to what degree industry is consulted by FAA and NASA in setting priorities on implementing programs.
Discuss the remaining challenges in developing environmentally compatible, and economically viable engines for civil supersonic transports, and what type of research effort would be needed to achieve this goal.
4. Background
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As part of their missions, the FAA and NASA are responsible for conducting civil aeronautics research and development. Each plays a distinct but complementary role. FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) is geared to produce near-term (three to five years) innovative technologies to assure a safe, efficient, and environmentally acceptable national airspace system. NASA aeronautics R&D focuses on long-term, high-risk research of a similar vein. Both the FAA and NASA have recently released their strategic plans for aviation and aeronautics research. For FY03 the Administration has requested $126.7M for FAA Research, Engineering and Development; $541M for NASA aeronautics R&D.
In order to minimize duplication of effort, and to draw on each agency's competencies, several joint management committees have been put in place to promote collaboration and coordination of mutual R&D program goals.
At the highest level is the FAA–NASA Executive Committee, jointly chaired by the FAA Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions (Steve Zaidman) and NASA Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology (Sam Venneri). The purpose of the executive committee is to coordinate planning between the two agencies' aeronautics R&D programs.
Under the Committee's purview is the Safety Joint Working Group that coordinates aviation safety research, and the Interagency Air Traffic Management Integrated Product Team that coordinates aviation system efficiency research. Recent efforts have been initiated to establish a new joint working group on aviation security.
63
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
77951b.eps
1\ See Appendices for expanded agency budgets.
2\ R,E&Ds original appropriation for FY02 was $191M. It received an additional $50M in the emergency supplemental for aviation security activities. For FY03, aviation security is transferred to the Transportation Security Administration ($44.5M). Taking into account the transfer, and not adding in the $50M emergency supplemental, the reduction from FY02 would be $20.2M. See note at bottom of Appendix B.
Federal Aviation Administration—FAA's budget is divided into four major accounts. Two of the accounts, Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) and Facilities and Equipment (F&E), fund projects and activities of a research and development nature. This hearing is focused on the R,E&D account. R,E&D funding levels for FY01 and FY02 and the budget request for FY03 are shown in the table above. In FY02, the R,E&D account received an additional $50 million in the emergency supplemental. The FY03 budget reflects the transfer of aviation security research funding to the newly created Transportation Security Administration (TSA). In addition to this transfer, there is an overall trend of funds and projects being transferred out of R,E&D and into the F&E account. There is a concern that R&D funds in the F&E account are more likely to be used for very near-term needs rather than for research to solve long-term problems.
For example, the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development (CAASD)—FAA's own Federally Funded Research and Development Center that received $81.4 million in FY02—has been shifted into the Facilities and Equipment account. The FY03 budget request proposes to shift funding that supports FAA's Technical Center(see footnote 1) in the same manner. Many high-profile FAA research programs aimed at improving our nation's air traffic control system (for example the Operational Evolution Plan, the Wide Area Augmentation System/Local Area Augmentation System, and Communications/Navigation/Surveillance technologies) have been similarly transferred to the Facilities and Equipment account.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FAA's R,E&D Budget—The ''National Aviation Research Plan'' is FAA's strategic roadmap for R&D investment and is updated annually. It details R&D activities in both the R,E&D and F&E programs that support prime elements of the FAA mission:
Safety—By 2007, reduce U.S. aviation fatal accident rates by 80 percent from 1996 levels.
Security—Prevent security incidents in the aviation system.
System Efficiency—Provide an aerospace transportation system that meets the needs of users and is efficient in the application of FAA and aerospace resources.
Environmental Compatibility—Prevent, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts, which may represent the single greatest challenge to the continued growth and prosperity of civil aerospace.
The FY03 R,E&D budget proposes to allocate funding in the following manner: 80 percent for improving aviation safety; 6 percent for environment and energy; 7 percent for improving the efficiency of the national airspace system; and 7 percent for mission support.
Major lines of research in the R,E&D program, their proposed FY03 budgets and associated research goals include:
77951c.eps
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NASA's Aeronautics Budget—NASA's Aeronautics R&D program is one component of the Office of Aerospace Technology (OAT). The OAT enterprise has four major ''thrusts,''(see footnote 2) one being aeronautics, known as ''Revolutionize Aviation.'' For FY03, the Administration requested $541.4M for aeronautics R&D, a reduction of $58M from FY02 appropriated funding. NASA has also developed a new budget structure for FY03 to provide better visibility into aeronautics by creating a separate dedicated budget line. (NASA's aeronautics budget is displayed in Appendix C in the old format to allow comparisons with FY02.)
NASA defines its research and development in a matrix of inter-related objectives that lead to a series of high-risk goals requiring years to pursue. This program is laid out in budget documents and in its strategic roadmap (called the Aeronautics Blueprint and downloadable from NASA's website: http://www.aerospace.nasa.gov/aero—blueprint/index.html). The Blueprint lays out technology advances that are targeted to produce: (1) advanced concepts for airspace system; (2) revolutionary vehicles with significantly greater performance; (3) a new paradigm for aviation security and safety; and (4) assured development of a capable workforce for the future.
Like the FAA, NASA's aeronautics investment has steadily declined over the years. In addition, the content of its research has evolved from one devoted largely to aircraft and structures to a more systems-level program with emphasis on integrating a variety of IT technologies in aircraft and with in-ground air traffic management systems.
Highlights of NASA's aeronautics R&D budget request and their associated research goals include:
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
77951d.eps
NASA's aeronautics R&D is conducted at four of its 10 research centers: Ames Research Center, CA (Air Traffic Control System software development; IT integration; nanotechnology and biotechnology); Langley Research Center, VA (structures and materials; airborne systems; aerospace systems concepts and analysis); Glenn Research Center, OH (aerodynamics; aeropropulsion; and aerospace communications); and Dryden Research Center, CA (flight safety; flight research technology; fluids and combustion; and aerospace power and electric propulsion).
77951e.eps
77951f.eps
77951g.eps
Chairman ROHRABACHER. We have today a distinguished Panel of aerospace experts and they will explain the current trends in aeronautical research. And we have to ask them, of course, we would hope that you would summarize your statements to five minutes. That will give us all a chance to ask you questions about the essence of what you want to present to us today, rather than spending 10 or 15 minutes on the periphery of what you really wanted to say.
So our first witness is Sam Venneri, Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology and Chief Technologist at NASA. And we have all worked with Sam for many years and appreciate his many years of service to our country and to the cause of an America leading the way in aerospace. And, Sam, we certainly appreciate your advice over the years and we are looking forward right now to hearing what you have to say about aeronautical research. You may proceed.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF MR. SAMUEL L. VENNERI, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. VENNERI. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have a formal written statement for the record that we would have submitted, and I will take five minutes to summarize. First, I would like to thank you for having this hearing. I think it is very appropriate and timely given the interest where we see we need to go over the next decade. The events that you mentioned at 9/11 shows really where civil aviation is critical to this Nation's infrastructure and the disruptive force that that terrible event has had on it and the recovery we are on.
Also, the military actions in Afghanistan with air power just shows the value, from a military sense, what force projection means. And we, at NASA, are very proud of our role in advancing technology for both civil and military in working with our associate agencies in making that happen. We want to look forward now.
I want to start off by talking about some of the things we have accomplished this past year. And one is NASA is back to its roots and ways of setting records. We flew a Helios high-altitude flying wing aircraft that was solar powered to 96,500 feet on August 13.
Now, that just—it not only set a record, but it opens up a whole new plateau of long endurance, uninhabited flying systems that opens up a new vista of what aviation means to unmanned platforms or uninhabited platforms, for communication platform surveillance, up at altitudes way above the weather and literally staying aloft for really no time limit, living off the sun's energy. And we are moving toward using fuel cells as the next step, where it really gives you unlimited endurance and opens up the possibility of going toward all electric vehicles.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Likewise, this past year, we are about midway in our safety program, in terms of a strategy we have laid out for the next five years. And this last August and September, with the airlines, the FAA, and industry, we demonstrated synthetic vision. So on a cloudy, low-weather day, it looks crystal clear on a display in your cockpit. You see other traffic. You see ground vehicles, and you basically see a pathway to the runway, uninhibited by clouds, fog. And we are moving that forward into an insertion into this system over the next few years.
Likewise, our partnerships with the FAA—our technology transfer to the FAA tends to be decision support tools, displays, software technology that goes into today's air traffic management system. And where we are—what we have just completed—and you can see a company moving out in that—is we have concluded our program on civil tilt rotor programs, looking at noise abatement and flight path ways of taking what amounts to a runway-independent aircraft and dealing with getting it into conventional airports where it doesn't restrict a flow of normal aircraft using full runways. That activity is being picked up by companies, such as Bell, in their 609 small tiltrotor technology.
And where we are moving out now is looking at other advanced concepts and working with the Army to try to understand where advanced concepts and uninhabited rotor craft systems or runway-independent aircraft systems can go.
I want to also talk about a setback we had, the X–43, which was the—really, to fly at mach 7 and up to mach 10. Now, that is a dream that people have had in hypersonics for over 50 years. The last time we set a record, flying a little bit over a mach 6, was 1967 with an X–15. So what we are looking at doing is recovering from the accident. We will certainly keep the Subcommittee Members informed as to the reasons for the accident with the X–43, which we are about two weeks away from releasing that accident investigation and our recovery plan. We will fly at mach 7 in the coming year.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, to get at the issue that you raised in your opening statement, we just published this aeronautics blueprint. This is really the aeronautics vision for NASA for the next century. And in this brochure, you will see a message from our Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, that has signed up to this idea of NASA relevance in aeronautics, and where our goals should be for the next century of flight based on our accomplishments over the last century, but moving forward with an idea.
Now, one of the things that I think we have succeeded in doing, as you alluded to, is we stabilized the aeronautics budget. It was on a downhill slide. Basically, we are at $540 million. And if I look at the projection over the next five years, we have $2.6 billion in the President's budget to do what is right for the country in aeronautics. This blueprint, in effect, is our way of structuring his vision. There would have been—our customers, both industry, academia, and other government agencies, were involved in this. So this is the framework we are building off of.
And one of the things that we are looking at doing is not only structuring a vision, but really dealing with a transformation of NASA. We are really looking at, in this information age and the research that is out in universities, how do we transform NASA to be relevant for aeronautics for the 21st century. So this is looking at new partnerships with universities and bringing intellectual capital together, that doesn't just focus this behind the fences at NASA.
So we are in a major effort now to basically provide guidance to our centers in both the fiscal year '03 budget call and structuring the fiscal year '04 budget strategy. What is the right size? Our core competency, our institutional facilities—and how do we actually implement this vision for the country with one team? Not just a NASA team, but the team of universities, industry, and working with FAA, DOD, as we embark on this effort?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we look forward to working with this Committee in providing to you our views of how this gets implemented, the prioritizations of how we allocate this $2.6 billion, and really the American people, to give them what we need to advance both vehicle systems and our air traffic management system of the future that they operate in. So thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Venneri follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAMUEL L. VENNERI
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss NASA's investment in aeronautics for our Nation. Advancing aeronautics technology has never been more important. I come before you in the aftermath of this Nation's civil aviation system being usurped and used against our citizens in a horrible act of terrorism. And I come before you when we have seen the power of our military aviation capability help decisively achieve our military objectives in Afghanistan. Clearly, the imperatives for technological advancement for are real. NASA is proud to play a central role in developing technologies that address the national needs in aviation.
Program Performance
In fiscal year 2001, NASA continued its history of achievement in aeronautics. From technology to reduce the aviation fatal accident rate, to increase the capacity of our system, and to reduce the environmental impact of aviation, we have had a productive year.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At about the half-way point in implementation, the Aviation Safety Program has accomplished key milestones on the way to delivering validated technologies for accident reduction. For example, synthetic vision technology has the potential to eliminate low-visibility conditions as a cause of civil aircraft accidents. The system projects to the pilot a clear, sunny day, regardless of the outside weather conditions or time of day. Flight evaluations comparing conventional displays to synthetic vision displays were conducted over a 3-week period during August-September 2001. The pilots, representing the Boeing Company, the Federal Aviation Administration, and three major airlines conducted 11 research flights for a total of 106 airport approaches, performing tests designed to assess system acceptability and usability. Early results indicate that the pilot was more aware of the relation of the aircraft to the runway and hazardous obstacles when using the synthetic vision displays.
Another revolutionary technology that shows promise in eliminating causes of aircraft accidents is a flight control system that can compensate for damaged control surfaces (for example, flaps) or an engine failure during flight. This capability, simulated on the ground this past year, uses a ''neural net'' flight control architecture that uses the unaffected control surfaces and engines to compensate for the failed ones. Biologically-inspired, the ''neural net'' is the brain of this control system that assesses the damage and directs the other surfaces how to compensate allowing the aircraft to continue flying safely.
The culmination of our Aircraft Noise Reduction project this year resulted in full-scale static engine testing on a Pratt & Whitney 4098 engine to validate a combination of several technologies, including acoustic liners and improvements to the engine inlet. Airframe noise reduction concepts were validated on a detailed reduced-scale Boeing 777 model. Two tests were conducted to validate engine system noise reduction in a flight environment. A serrated nozzle and other jet noise reduction concepts were validated on a Lear 25, and both jet and fan noise reduction concepts were validated on a Falcon 20. Overall, these technologies can reduce noise by 2–5 decibels compared to the 1997 state-of-the-art baseline and serve as an excellent basis for our continued noise reduction efforts in the Quiet Aircraft Technology project.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The civil tiltrotor aircraft was investigated for runway-independent commuter-aircraft operations which can free up the runway to allow more access for large aircraft carrying many passengers. The barriers to its acceptance are the noise generated and assuring the public that noise abatement measures can be implemented while maintaining safe flying qualities. In FY 2001, NASA successfully concluded its civil tiltrotor project and transferred to industry: low-noise prop-rotor designs, the capability to design and evaluate efficient low-noise tiltrotors, and safe, low-noise landing and take-off profiles. The results from these efforts culminated in a comprehensive simulation database of operating procedures needed for flying the complex, low-noise flight paths. NASA validated that low-noise profiles can be safely accomplished, even in adverse conditions.
NASA also continued its close work with the FAA to increase the efficiency of the National Airspace System by providing the FAA two decision support tools. Software tools that support decision making by air traffic control require an ability to accurately predict future aircraft positions during flight. This trajectory prediction capability is especially important to Center-TRACON (Terminal Radar Control) Automation System (CTAS) based tools. To perform long-range trajectory predictions, CTAS relies on the availability of aircraft state, aircraft performance, flight plan intent, and atmospheric data. En Route Data Exchange (EDX) enables real time flight data exchange between aircraft and ground information systems. Under a memorandum of agreement among NASA, the FAA and United Airlines, 48 Boeing 777 airplanes received EDX software modifications that allowed automatic extraction of flight data information and delivery over VHF datalink to the NASA CTAS lab. Data collected from over 1,000 United B–777 operations in Denver Center airspace validated the capability of EDX.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A second tool, the Collaborative Arrival Planner, has proven so beneficial that it is already in use with the FAA and airlines. This tool exchanges real-time air traffic control information with airline operational control centers, such that aircraft operation decisions made by the control centers are based on the most up-to-date information possible. In the area of general aviation, NASA and its partners in the Advanced General Aviation Technology Experiments (AGATE) consortium successfully concluded the AGATE project. This very successful project culminated in a ''highways in the sky'' (HITS) flight demonstration at the Experimental Aircraft Association AirVenture in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The HITS makes navigating easier for pilots of all experience levels. A flight path symbology provides the pilot with a three-dimensional path that can be followed from departure to destination. The publishing of the associated design guidelines, system standards, certification bases, and methods was completed and transferred to the industry.
Building on the successful AGATE consortium, the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) project began the development of systems engineering plans to guide the way to the flight demonstration proofs of concept. To support the development of the engineering plans, four partnership agreements were established with teams comprised of representatives from state aviation/transportation departments, private industry, general aviation user groups, academia, and other non-profit organizations. These teams include: Maryland SATS Lab, North Carolina-Upper Great Plains SATS Lab (including Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma), Southeast SATS Lab Consortium (Florida), and the Virginia SATS Lab.
NASA's aerodynamic research into abrupt wing stall, or loss of lift, led to a breakthrough in tool development that can predict such phenomena. This sudden stall occurs over relatively small changes in angle of attack or sideslip and results in the significant loss of lift for one wing, causing large rolling motions. This unintended motion has occurred on a variety of tactical aircraft, including the F–18E, YF–16, YF–17, F–15, and EA–6B, just to name a few. Historically, flight tests were the only reliable source to find solutions to the problem. For example, the F/A–18E endured one and a half years of developmental flight-testing and evaluation of over 100 different configurations and over 500 flights, costing tens of millions of dollars, to solve this problem. Working jointly with the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force, NASA developed validated figures of merit for identifying abrupt wing stall and is continuing to complete design guidelines and procedures for preventing it and other uncontrolled flight motions for high performance aircraft. NASA is developing wind tunnel testing methods that focus on finding design characteristics that cause abrupt wing stall during the early stages of aircraft design and eliminating them before flight testing is started.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the area of flight research, we experienced a ''low'' and then a ''high.'' The attempt at the first of three flights of the Hyper-X, or X–43A, designed to be the first scramjet-powered vehicle, capable of attaining speeds as high as Mach 10, occurred this past June. The test vehicle was lost moments after the launch vehicle was released from the wing of the NASA B–52 carrier aircraft. Following launch vehicle ignition, the launch vehicle experienced a structural failure and deviated from its flight path, which resulted in its commanded destruction. A Mishap Investigation Board (MIB) was immediately formed and is conducting a thorough review of the failure. The MIB findings are expected to be released soon. A recovery plan is in development and the MIB findings will be addressed prior to scheduling the next X–43 flight.
Our ''high'' was the flight of the unique Helios Prototype solar-powered flying wing, developed by AeroVironment, Inc., for NASA. On August 13th, it reached an altitude of 96,863 feet during a flight from the Hawaiian island of Kauai. It established the highest altitude ever flown by a non-rocket-powered aircraft in sustained horizontal flight—well above the world record of 85,068 feet, set by a U.S. Air Force Lockheed SR–71A reconnaissance aircraft in July 1976. It also surpassed the existing altitude record of 80,201 feet for propeller-driven aircraft, set by the Pathfinder-Plus (Helios Prototype's predecessor) in August 1998. The 96,863-foot record is pending certification by the Federation Aeronautique Internationale. Production variants of Helios might see service as long-term environmental or disaster monitors for the Earth, as well as communications relays. These aircraft would reduce dependence on satellites and provide service in areas not covered by satellites.
Program Restructuring and Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2003
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For the FY 2003 budget submission to Congress, the Aerospace Technology Enterprise program work breakdown structure has been reorganized to create a clear linkage between National policy, the Enterprise strategic goals and the program management structure. This restructuring creates an unambiguous linkage from the Agency Strategic Plan to the FY 2003 budget and provides a foundation for transparent, measurable performance reporting through the Government Performance and Results Act. This change also ensures that the Agency fulfills the intent of the language in House Conference Report 107–272 accompanying H.R. 2620, ''Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002:''
''The conferees agree with the House that by merging the budgets for aeronautics and space into a single 'aerospace technology' program element several years ago, NASA has made it virtually impossible to account for the current investment in aeronautics. For this reason, the conferees direct NASA to re-establish a consolidated aeronautics line in the fiscal year 2003 budget submission that comprehensively covers all research base, focused, and advanced technology programs, and related test facilities and civil service costs. NASA should also provide a clear budget crosscut identifying all aeronautics programmatic activities in the current budget structure in its initial fiscal year 2002 operating plan.''
NASA's direct investment in aeronautics is now fully contained within three technology programs—Aviation Safety, Vehicle Systems and Airspace Systems—under the Revolutionize Aviation Goal. Our budget request in this area for FY 2003 is $541.4 million, an increase from the President's FY 2002 request of $527 million. Over five years, the President's FY 2003 Budget plan will invest well over $2.6 billion towards the Revolutionize Aviation goal.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Aviation Safety program will continue to develop and demonstrate technologies and strategies to improve aviation safety by reducing both aircraft accident and fatality rates. Some of the items that will be accomplished in FY 2003 include: flight evaluation of a synthetic vision system products integrated with precision approach and landing and display system concepts, flight evaluation of the next generation cockpit weather information system, and a smart icing management system for automatic management of ice protection systems.
The Vehicle Systems program will take advantage of the emergence of revolutionary advances in biotechnology, nanotechnology, and information technology to enable significant advances in the functionality of 21st Century aircraft. Some of the items that will be accomplished during FY 2003 include: completion of sector testing of engine combustor that reduce oxides of nitrogen emissions by 70 percent; development of physics-based models related to noise generation and propagation physics for airframe and engine noise sources as well as noise interaction between engine and airframe; and, demonstration of a dual channel regulated, integrated Propulsion and Power system test bed—the first end-to-end demonstration of a such a system including fuel cell power generation and realistic loads configured for aircraft requirements.
The Aviation System Capacity program will enable improvements in mobility, capacity, efficiency and access of the airspace system by developing, validating and transferring technologies that improve collaboration, predictability and flexibility for the airspace users, enable runway-independent aircraft, provide more access for general aviation operations. Some of the items that will be accomplished during FY 2003 include: completing models of the airspace system that include the capability to model the dynamic effects of interactive agents in the National Airspace System (NAS); select candidate technologies for experimental flight evaluation based on their impact on mobility either through reduced system cost, improved doorstep-to-destination time, increased trip reliability, and/or improved safety of small aircraft; and development of strategies to improve training and procedures to reduce misunderstandings between pilots and air traffic controllers.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to the improved strategic alignment of our program that was achieved by the restructuring, by increasing focus and clarity, the restructuring also facilitates investment decisions, reviews and partnership development. The Enterprise approach for implementing the program begins with investment decisions based on rigorous systems analysis. For aeronautics, thorough top-down systems analyses are being performed to identify technology leverage. Programs will maintain systems analyses that articulate the expected benefit of the program toward the Enterprise objectives. Annual program reviews will be used to measure progress (technical, schedule and cost) against requirements and deliverables. Starting this year, the Aerospace Technology Enterprise will have the National Academy of Sciences Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) undertake reviews of its major program areas on a rotating basis every three years. Aeronautics programs under the Enterprise's Revolutionize Aviation Goal will undergo their first review next year. These reviews will provide independent, external assessments of the quality of NASA's technology research and program planning, whether research can be performed by universities or industry outside NASA, and how well NASA's technology research integrates with customer needs. NASA will use these assessments to inform future program decisions.
Based on the principles and the approach outlined above, plus integrating and consolidating long-term and mid-term technology development provides a stronger, clearer linkage between basic research and advanced development.
Aeronautics Blueprint
With the budget submission to Congress, we also released the NASA Aeronautics Blueprint. This document articulates a vision for aeronautics that we believe can achieve the objectives set out in our Aerospace Enterprise Strategic Plan. As we looked forward and examined the issues facing aviation, we recognized a need for new concepts and new technologies to break through the current plateau facing aviation. Achieving big increases in capacity and mobility while improving safety and reducing environmental impacts was not feasible within today's construct and technology baseline. What we found was that emerging technologies, when combined with advances in traditional aerospace disciplines, can enable new system concepts that operate at levels of performance that eclipse current systems.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we are successful, the future of flight will be radically different from today's aviation systems. The design flexibility that the revolution in materials and computing technologies provides could enable aircraft whose shape could change to meet a range of performance requirements; for example, range, maneuverability and radar cross-section. With new fuel cell power systems, zero emissions may be possible, and the only noise would be that generated by the air flowing over the vehicle. The wing shape may be changed during flight to control the vehicle, eliminating the need for the weight and complexity of flaps and conventional control surfaces. These aircraft could be flown in an air transportation system that allows hassle-free, on-demand travel to any location. The beneficial variations are potentially limitless—truly revolutionizing air vehicles, not only commercial and military aircraft, but also personal air vehicles and the utilization of more of the 5400 airports thus providing service to small communities and rural regions that today do not have easy access to air travel.
The Blueprint will be used to help guide and prioritize our investments. And we have already begun the process—the framework and emphasis of the Blueprint is reflected in the program restructuring. Next steps include more detailed systems analysis and technology roadmapping.
NASA–FAA Partnership
While we have restructured our program and developed a long-term vision contained in the Blueprint, the NASA–FAA partnership remains of central importance to NASA.
Across the board in aviation—from air traffic management (ATM), to aviation safety, to environmental issues to new vehicle systems, NASA works closely with the FAA. We work together to ensure that NASA's work is appropriately reflected within the FAA's plans. We believe that as we look forward, NASA's pioneering research will be of increasing importance to the FAA.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The FAA's Operational Evolution Plan defines FAA's effort to modernize the air traffic control (ATC) system and improve the capacity of the system. Within that architecture, air traffic controllers need improved computer aids to help them plan and manage air traffic more efficiently. As an example, through the FAA Free Flight Program, the FAA implemented the NASA developed Center-TRACON Automation System (CTAS) at the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport, to support daily operations in all weather conditions, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. CTAS provides computer intelligence and graphical user interfaces to assist air traffic controllers in the efficient management and control of air traffic. The system has allowed a 10 percent increase in landing rate during critical traffic rushes. These improvements have translated into an estimated annual savings of $9M in operations cost at Dallas Fort-Worth Airport.
Most recently, NASA successfully demonstrated the ''Direct to'' decision support tool in the Dallas-Fort Worth Center. Direct to allowed controllers to easily provide conflict-free direct routes to airlines, saving significant time and fuel. This demonstration, performed over a two week period, worked flawlessly, with no software errors. Both controllers and pilots were impressed with the benefit and ease of use of the tool.
NASA and the FAA carry out its partnership based on an Integrated Plan for Air Traffic Management Research and Technology Development. The Integrated Plan describes how the two organizations combine resources and expertise to conduct research that realizes key, evolutionary improvements in the management and utilization of the NAS. The integrated research program comprises a total of over $500M in FAA and NASA resources over a six-year period (2001–2006). We also carry out closely coordinated research in the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) project. This is aimed at proving technologies that can add capacity to the strained National Aviation System using general aviation for transportation at safety levels of commercial aviation.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the Air Traffic Management arena, NASA uses its unique technical expertise and facilities to develop advanced air traffic decision support tools, improve training efficiency and cockpit safety through human factors research, and develop new concepts for advanced communications, navigation and surveillance systems. The FAA defines system requirements and applies its operational expertise to ensure that the technically advanced airborne and ground equipment, software and procedures developed by NASA are operationally useful, efficient, safe and cost effective. Working together, we ensure the fastest and smoothest transition possible from the laboratory to operational benefit in the aviation system.
The Integrated Plan provides a performance-based focus on the initiatives that comprise Free Flight Phase 1 and Free Flight Phase 2. Phase 1 will deploy core capabilities at selected en route and terminal Air Traffic Control (ATC) facilities by 2002. Free Flight Phase 2 expands Free Flight Phase 1 capabilities and will deploy additional key capabilities that have been identified as sufficiently mature and operationally beneficial by the FAA and RTCA (2003–2005). In support of Free Flight Phases 1 and 2, NASA is currently working on a suite of 16 technologies that will improve gate-to-gate air traffic management, increase capacity and flexibility, and overcome airport capacity constraints due to weather. Several of these technologies are integrated into the Center-TRACON Automation System described above.
Beyond these technologies, NASA has initiated its Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation project in FY02. This project will help define advanced ATM architectures that extend beyond today's model to provide major gains in capacity. While this work is in its early stages, we believe it will be crucial to the future of our civil aviation system and will provide the basis for future phases of FAA's modernization efforts.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NASA also works closely with the FAA in safety and environmental technologies. In fact, NASA's programs in these areas are this Nation's long-term research and technology investments in aviation safety and environmental technologies. FAA's investments are much more near-term and tend to support the regulatory process. Therefore, our investments are complementary. In each of these areas, NASA and the FAA have long-standing formal relationships and coordinating mechanisms.
September 11, 2001
Within the construct of our partnership with the FAA, NASA is actively developing a long-term technology strategy in response to the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We believe that technology can make a big difference over the long-term. We are taking a systems approach to looking for opportunities to improve security with technology—from the airport to the airspace and from prevention to mitigation. We are also focusing hard on technology solutions which have synergy with safety and capacity to ensure that the solutions have the greatest benefit for the investment and can be developed in the most rapid and efficient manner possible.
We have met several times with the FAA in our planning and are expanding our coordination to the Department of Transportation (DOT) Transportation Security Agency and the Department of Defense. As these preliminary discussions proceed, we will keep Congress informed of our progress.
Transformation
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have outlined an aggressive program within this budget with a bold vision for the future of aeronautics. To achieve this vision and to support our full Enterprise mission to support the Agency's mission with critical research and technology, we are working hard on developing a transformation agenda for our Research Centers. We believe it is of critical importance to develop and sustain the research and technology core competencies that are central to our mission. However, we are looking to the future, not the past and what competencies we need and how we manage them may change substantially. We are seeking to reduce institutional costs at our field centers so more funds can be invested in openly competed technology research. Some of the key actions we are already undertaking include:
As described previously, undertaking independent, external reviews by the National Academy of Sciences Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) to provide independent, external assessments of the: quality of NASA's technology research and program planning, whether research can be performed by universities or industry outside NASA, and how well NASA's technology research integrates with customer needs;
Setting key decision points and sunsets from which decisions are made on whether programs should change direction, move to new phases, or be terminated;
Putting agreements in place with our customers elsewhere in NASA and the Federal Government to ensure the relevancy of the products of our technology research and increase the likelihood that these products make their way into operational use;
Initiating five University Research, Engineering and Technology Institutes to broaden University involvement in the NASA mission while developing the next generation of scientists and engineers;
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Pursuing pathfinder efforts under the President's Management Agenda to improve the ability of NASA's field centers to respond to future challenges and directions in technology research and development. One effort already identified would create a University-Affiliated Research Center (UARC) organization at the NASA Ames Research Center to complement their activities and greatly improve the flexibility of the Ames workforce and ensure access to world-class researchers. Other efforts still under review include competitive sourcing activities or consolidation of NASA facilities with military installations; and
Increasing use of NASA Research Announcements and other openly competed procurement mechanisms to open competition in our technology research to all potential sources of innovations within and outside NASA.
Further strategies and actions will be defined over the next few months as we develop an integrated Strategic Transformation Plan that is responsive to the President's Management Agenda.
NASA is committed to utilizing the best and most efficient public and private sector capabilities to achieve our technology objectives. NASA will focus its research capability and develop a collaborative R&D network inclusive of academia and industry, enabling a geographically-distributed but highly-integrated National R&D team. This will transform NASA and create the excitement necessary to inspire and develop today's and tomorrow's engineering workforce and enable a new era in flight.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Sam. And we realize that many of the good programs and the things that you are talking about, the progress we have made in air traffic and such, came under the leadership of Dan Goldin, who spent, what was it 9 or 10 years as your boss and overseeing this program. So we are grateful to him even though he is not with us right now. And some of the things that you are talking about and the progress that has been made.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So our next witness is Steve Zaidman, who is Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions at the FAA, and heads an organization responsible thus. He heads the organization responsible for research, engineering, and development for our national aerospace system. And, Mr. Zaidman, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN B. ZAIDMAN, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. ZAIDMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and, Congressman Gordon, and members of the Subcommittee. And I—we really appreciate the opportunity to participate in this very timely and important hearing. I am particularly pleased to be joined by Sam, as well as with my other colleagues, who provide us with valuable insight and expertise to our program.
Today, I would like to provide just a very brief overview of how we spend that money that you authorize us and how, in particular, we are working with the newly formed Transportation Security Administration, post-9/11.
However, to just set a framework, our 2003 budget request for R&D is $127 million, and we break that money into four broad categories—aviation, safety programs, which comprise 80 percent of that money, programs associated with weather research, which is about 10 percent of that money, environmental research, another 10 percent of the money, and a small amount for general laboratory upkeep. But the bulk of the money does go into aviation research, followed by weather and environmental.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me give you some examples of how we spent this money very, very briefly. In the safety area, we, as our citizens of this country are very concerned about the problem of aging aircraft, aging wiring, composite materials age. We have a very strong program that we work, not only with NASA and DOD and others to be able to identify faults, cracks, and electrical shorts, through nondestructive testing by inspection. Much of our money goes into that.
And just last year, we and DOD developed a new type of circuit breaker to protect—to notice arcing in electrical circuits before—in such amount of time that—before fuel can be combustible. We developed two prototypes of that, and this year we will be going into production with partners on that.
The other area that we spend our resources in is weather. Hazardous weather to aviation, particularly icing, where general aviation and commuter aircraft fly at low altitudes that are subject to icing. And last year, we developed a—we call it a red, yellow, green—to be able to brief—pilot briefing materials, so they can accurately determine where icing conditions lie for the aircraft that they fly. That is available on the web and it is available publicly.
This year we are working very closely with NASA in our noise mitigation and emissions mitigation, the environmental research. We are funding—working with NASA—particularly at NASA Langley, we are providing $14 million to reduce the source of aircraft noise. We are working to establish a center of excellence with academia to study ways in reducing noise and emissions.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, I would like to talk a little bit about how we are working with the newly established Transportation Security Administration, or TSA. And virtually we work very closely with them because many FAA people are now doing the job in the new agency that was established in the DOT.
As a result of the tragedy, horrific tragedy, of September 11, we have realigned our R&D focus on security to comply with the statute—and particularly, and to comply with the need to develop new ways of screening baggage and screening people. Most of our R&D is going into that. In addition, biometrics, the verification of passengers and employees.
Some security-related R&D will remain the responsibility of FAA. We have hardened baggage containers to better withstand blast damage in the aircraft hold. We are doing biomedical issues research—things such as that, which I will be very happy to answer questions on.
So, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the support this Committee has given us in the past and look forward to the continued cooperation with yourself and the other members of the Subcommittee in addressing the critical aviation needs of this country. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zaidman follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. ZAIDMAN
Chairman Rohrabacher, Congressman Gordon, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) investment in civil aeronautics research and development, as reflected in FAA's research and development (R&D) program and budget request for Fiscal Year 2003: I am particularly pleased to appear with my colleague, Mr. Venneri, from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), with whom we work very closely, and with my colleagues from private industry who provide valuable insight and expertise for our programs.
Today, I would like to provide a brief overview of our FY03 budget request, and address some of the highlights of our R&D program while highlighting how we work collaboratively with NASA, the Department of Defense (DOD), industry and academia, and provide a brief update on how we are working with the newly established Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
The agency's R&D program makes significant contributions to support our mission to provide a safe, secure, and efficient airspace system. As we all recognize, the security of our National Airspace System (NAS) is foremost in everyone's mind at this time. We appreciate the support that Congress has shown for our efforts in improving security these past few months. I can assure you that we, and our colleagues at TSA, will continue to work very hard to protect our citizens and infrastructure against new security threats, even as we strengthen measures already in place through the deployment of new security equipment made possible by our R&D program.
I Although aviation security has understandably been the focus in recent months, safety of the system is also paramount. Even though the United States enjoys the world's safest air transportation system, we know that we must further reduce the aircraft accident rate and employ new technologies and procedures to increase efficiency as traffic grows. And, we must better understand and minimize any adverse effects from aviation on our environment and communities. Our R&D program addresses many different aircraft and operational safety concerns. The FAA's focused safety agenda is a result of our partnership with industry, NASA, DOD and other government agencies through the Safer Skies alliance. Within this alliance, data is shared and analyzed to identify root causes of aviation safety incidents, and agreement is reached on specific steps to take to mitigate those causes and prevent future incidents. As a result of this partnership, our R&D program in FY 2003 includes increased efforts in safety-critical areas such as runway incursion prevention; aircraft safety, improved weather prediction, detection and dissemination, and human factors.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
More specifically, our program for FY 2003 is a balanced effort to address all of these concerns based on a request for a total of $127 million for our Research, Engineering & Development (R,E&D) account. This request represents $118 million less than the enacted FY 2002 appropriations of $245 million. The difference is based primarily on the TSA's taking over $50 million of the FAA's security research program, plus a one-time supplemental appropriation in FY 2002 of $50 million for security made available under DOD's latest appropriations Act, and an $18 million transfer from our R,E&D account to our Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account. This latter amount shifts funding for the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development (CAASD) ($5.0M) which performs research relating to air traffic modernization projects, support for information system security projects ($2.5M), and supports funding for the FAA's Technical Center ($10.5M).
Although this describes our request for the FAA's R,E&D account, the FAA's budget also includes F&E funding for applied research activities under the Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping program and Safe Flight 21 ($70.9 million) and funding under the Airport Improvement Program for airport technology research ($16.4 million). With the $50 million for TSA's research activities, the total DOT aviation research related funding is approximately $264.3 million.
In the President's Budget, we presented our request in performance based terms in order to bring better focus on what broad areas our R&D projects are intended to support or improve. Grouped in this manner, of the total requested:
$101.4 million is for aviation aircraft technology safety programs, which includes research related to fire safety, aging aircraft, human factors and flight safety;
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
$9.1 million is for programs associated with improving air traffic efficiency through weather research including the development of in-flight icing products based on satellite data analysis;
$7.7 million is for environmental research including exploratory research relating to aircraft and rotorcraft noise reduction technologies and aircraft noise and emissions models; and
$8.5 million is for general mission support.
Our budget request supports the major elements of our National Aviation Research Plan (NARP), which describes, in one document, how our R&D program supports the FAA's long term goals of safety, mobility, efficiency and environmental protection. The NARP presents the R&D program integrated by agency goals across our R,E&D and F&E accounts, thereby providing a broader context for our projects.
Our research effort fully support the agency's goals to reduce the fatal accident rate for commercial aviation and reduce the number of fatal accidents for general aviation. We do this in three, mutually supportive ways:
reducing accidents from known causal factors (weather, human error, turbine engine failures, aging aircraft failures);
reducing the occurrence of accidents due to new or previously unrecognized factors (new aircraft materials, technologies, or operational procedures); and
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
increasing the survivability of aviation accidents and incidents (fire blocking materials for aircraft interiors and improved aircraft crashworthiness).
For example, because of concern over a number of in-flight and ground fire incidents, Administrator Garvey directed that we conduct research on more stringent fire test standards for thermal acoustic insulation. That research now supports a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for improved flammability standards for thermal acoustic insulation. The research project included establishing separate test criteria for in-flight fire ignition/flame spread resistance and post-crash fire bumthrough resistance. We worked closely with industry to improve standardization of both test methods, assuring reproducible results between different test laboratories. In FY 2003, our research will address the broader issue of in-flight fire safety in inaccessible areas, consistent with related recommendations from National Transportation Safety Board and the Transportation Safety Board. Our work will involve an improved flammability test method for electrical wiring, and improved accessibility and use of hand-held extinguishers to fight hidden in-flight fires.
Over the past several years our collaborative program with DOD and NASA in aging aircraft R&D has led to new structural inspection techniques that help maintenance personnel locate structural problems before they become serious safety concerns. One of our major efforts has focused on gaining a better understanding of the effects of aging on non-structural aircraft systems such as wiring, flight controls and fuel systems. Such systems present major challenges for aircraft inspectors and maintenance personnel since they are imbedded within the airframe and are often inaccessible for routine inspection.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In cooperation with Naval Air Systems Command, we are developing a new form of circuit protection technology that is capable of sensing an electrical arc along a wire and opening the circuit, thus greatly reducing the threat of an electrical arc fire. With FAA funding, two such prototype alternating current arc fault circuit breakers were developed and successfully flight-tested on the FAA's B–727. Component specifications are currently being written and some forms of this circuit breaker are now available for procurement, and miniaturized versions will soon be available. We expect to continue this effort in FY 2003, including further development efforts to produce a direct current arc fault circuit breaker, methods to assess and mitigate wire chafing and degradation, and expansion of the program to conduct an intrusive assessment study for commuter aircraft.
Weather continues to be a major factor in causing system delays and presenting safety hazards to all types of aircraft. The aviation weather program focuses on conducting applied research in partnership with a broad spectrum of the weather research and user communities, and in transitioning advanced weather detection and prediction algorithms into operational use in government and private systems. Because they fly at lower altitudes, numerous crashes occur each year due to in-flight icing involving general aviation, air taxi, and commuter aircraft. In FY 2001, FAA completed development of the Flight Path Tool, which is an operational product that enables users to see a color-coded, graphical image of potential icing conditions at various altitudes, along the chosen flight path. This year, one of our products—Integrated Icing Diagnosis Algorithm—will be graduated into an operational product and another—the Integrated Icing Forecast Algorithm—will move into the experimental stage. These algorithms will provide more precise locations, including altitudes, of icing conditions to enable safer flight operations.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to safety related research, our R&D Projects are fully supportive of the agency's goal of providing a system that meets the needs of the users and is efficient in the application of FAA and aerospace resources. The R&D program supports efforts to match system capacity to the traffic demands of the users of the NAS, principally through providing new forecast and ''nowcast'' (meaning short-term, 15–20 minute, area specific forecast) tools that will reduce the impact of adverse weather on user operations. Also, long term research and development of air traffic management systems is no longer being done primarily by the FAA. NASA provides crucial research and development of future air traffic management technologies. NASA's congressional mandate is ideally suited to assist FAA with creating and developing concepts for the future. The foundation for our working relationship with NASA was formalized in October 1998 when the two agencies signed an agreement to articulate and achieve specific goals enabling the NAS to meet its future challenges. In accordance with the agreement, FAA and NASA jointly develop advanced air traffic control support tools, improve training efficiency and enhance safety through human factors research, and develop and test advanced communications, navigation and surveillance systems. NASA's role is to perform research, development, verification and transfer activities upon technologies with advanced potential for improving the NAS and to assist in the transition of those technologies. The FAA's complementary role is to, prepare these identified technologies for introduction into the NAS. We are working on technologies that will help with the flow of aircraft, including high altitude aircraft, into busy airports and will provide a flexible surface management system that will reduce arrival and departure delays and inefficiencies due to surface issues and other restrictions.
In August 2000, FAA and NASA signed the ''FAA–NASA Integrated Safety Research Plan.'' This plan further builds on our existing relationship. In addition to building upon previously existing plans involving the two agencies, it describes how FAA and NASA will achieve ongoing communication and coordination with respect to safety research in pursuit of common safety goals. It also establishes a strategy for FAA and NASA to make complementary, coordinated research investment decisions.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to our efforts with NASA, the FAA established and tailored a Technology Transfer program to address the need for government-private sector cooperation by enabling companies, institutions of learning, and Federal laboratories to work together to develop innovative technologies and marketable projects. For example, we have worked closely with NASA/Ames on the development of free flight tools, which have been very successful. Mitre/CAASD, which is the FAA's federally funded research and development corporation, assisted us in the development of our Operational Evolution Plan (OEP), which is our comprehensive, and integrated ''picture'' of all of FAA's capacity enhancement initiatives and goals for the next ten years. They have also provided considerable assistance in research for collaborative decision making tools. In addition, we are working with Lincoln Labs on important weather projects. These partnerships leverage our resources to fully explore the potential for the future technologies.
With regard to FAA's environmental efforts, our R&D projects fully support the agency's goal to prevent, minimize, and mitigate environmental impacts through increased understanding of current and potential environmental consequences of aviation-system operations and alternative countermeasures, and control of and reduction in the environmental impacts (both noise and emissions) of aircraft and airport operations. There remains significant concern about the environmental impact of aviation noise and emissions among communities and such issues are often major impediments to aviation's growth and the development of airport capacity. The FAA's noise R&D program is designed to prevent any increase in the impact of aircraft noise upon the population exposed to day/night operating conditions. Its aim is to optimize the mix of new aircraft certification standards, operational procedures, compatible land use, and abatement technologies. Improved analytic and planning tools are needed to provide a better understanding of aviation's noise impact upon the environment, and to give insight into the consequences of alternative courses of action.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In FY 2001, FAA released two updates of version 6.0 of the Integrated Noise Model (INM), the most widely used model for assessing airport noise in the world. The new releases include an expanded aircraft noise and performance database, helicopter noise calculation capability, and a 2000 Census extraction module. We also continue to update the Model for Assessing Global Exposure to the Noise of Transport Aircraft (MAGENTA) to improve its capabilities to forecast national, regional and world trends in noise exposure. In FY 2002, the FAA is using additional funding provided by Congress to further accelerate research under NASA's Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) program. FAA's participation will expand and accelerate the current QAT project under NASA's Aerospace Vehicle Systems Technology (AVST) Noise Reduction Program. The infusion of FAA funding will focus funding on promising technologies for noise reduction and expand research opportunities for industry partners.
In the area of aviation emissions, FAA's R&D program aims to minimize the impact of aircraft emissions through a mix of engine emissions certification standards, operational measures, and emissions reduction technology. The impact of aviation's emission upon the environment, while small, continues to increase with the growth of the industry. In order to provide a better understanding of aviation's emissions impact, and assess the consequences of alternative courses of action, new and improved analytic and planning tools are being developed to measure and evaluate impacts and benefits to be achieved through various mitigation measures. The FAA will also continue to work with NASA concerning the impact of aviation air emissions on climate and global atmospheric composition. Areas of collaboration include technology assessment, emissions inventory modeling, and emissions characterization.
I would like to emphasize that we regularly consult with industry and academia in setting priorities on implementing all of our programs. The FAA uses the Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) in its formal process for building and executing its research and development program. This group, composed of representatives from both industry and academia, is used throughout our process of building our investment portfolio. They provide guidance to us on work that we are doing, they review our proposed R&D investments to ensure that the programs are consistent with their guidance and have the right priorities for funding, and they review our programs during execution to ensure that research and development is being performed effectively and efficiently.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The core REDAC, which is a relatively small.group, accomplishes this activity principally through five standing subcommittees in the areas of Air Traffic Services, Aircraft Safety, Airports, Environment and Energy, and Human Factors. These subcommittees are staffed with REDAC members augmented by additional members from industry and academia who are acknowledged experts and leaders in the topical areas. Additionally, there are industry and academia groups, such as RTCA, that are involved in providing guidance and priorities for specific programs. Also, we task organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences and its subordinate boards to perform studies and provide recommendations in selected subject areas such as wake vortex/turbulence. In addition to these somewhat formal consultative fora, most of our staff have relationships of varying degrees of formality with their customers in industry and with academia for obtaining advice and guidance in establishing the goals for their projects.
Finally, I would like to address how we are working with our colleagues at the Transportation Security Administration. Since TSA was established, FAA has worked closely with TSA staff to address all the R&D actions required by the new security law, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) and to plan the FY02 security R&D program. As a result of the tragedy of September 11th, it was necessary to reassess R&D program and priorities. As you know, the immediate focus has been to accelerate technology that could be implemented early to assist in baggage and passenger screening as well as airport access control. Specific collaborative activities include:
requesting companies to bid under an existing Broad Agency Announcement for a second generation Computer-Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System (CAPPS);
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
planning for at the 20-airport pilot program to evaluate advanced technology for passenger screening and access control under ATSA;
evaluating numerous ideas from industry and universities to be considered within the R&D program; and
facilitating the orderly transfer of security R&D responsibility to TSA, per Congress' direction.
A recent example of this collaboration is that, within one week after the Richard Reid incident involving a shoe bomb, FAA researchers duplicated the shoe bomb, determined why it was difficult to ignite, tested it with our explosives detection system equipment, and identified ways to detect those kinds of bombs.
Immediately after the September 11th tragedy, we also sought NASA's input on proposals to respond to the heightened security threats. NASA briefed FAA management on their initiatives and asked FAA to work with them to determine where their technical capabilities might be most useful for improving security. NASA Ames Research Center hosted a two-day joint NASA/FAA workshop to explore the proposed NASA technical initiatives and concepts. As a result, NASA is preparing more detailed proposals for some of their initiatives as that FAA can further evaluate them.
Since security related R&D responsibility was transferred from FAA to TSA only three weeks ago, their processes to establish, coordinate, implement and manage research goals and priorities have not yet been determined due to the urgent need to restructure the program to accelerate technology that could be implemented early. Some security related R&D will remain the responsibility of FAA, such as R&D needed to support regulation and certification of aircraft hardening measures as well as some FAA safety, human factors and aviation medicine R&D, which has both safety and security benefits. These efforts need to and will be coordinated with not only the TSA R&D organization but also with the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee and the TSA's Security Scientific Advisory Panel.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the support this Subcommittee has extended in the past, and look forward to continued cooperation with you and the other Members of the Subcommittee in addressing many critical needs in aviation through the FAA's R&D program. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time.
BIOGRAPHY FOR STEVEN B. ZAIDMAN
Steven Zaidman, who has served in several key executive positions with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in his 21-year career with the agency, was named the FAA's Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions by FAA Administrator Jane Garvey in July 1998.
In this capacity, Zaidman heads a 2,000 member organization divided almost equally between FAA Washington headquarters and the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Center at Atlantic City, N.J. This organization is primarily responsible for designing and upgrading the infrastructure of the National Airspace System (NAS) in cooperation with the agency's other lines of business, particularly the air traffic services organization, and the user community.
Before assuming his new position, Zaidman served as acting Deputy Administrator for Research & Acquisitions since March 1998. For 2 years prior to that, he was the Director, Office of System Architecture and Investment Analysis, one of eight directors reporting directly to the Associate Administrator for Research and Acquisitions.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
From 1995 to 1996, Zaidman was Deputy Director, Office of Communications, Navigation, and Surveillance Systems, in the Research & Acquisitions organization. Prior to that, he served for 4 years as Director of the FAA's Research and Development Service, and for one year as its Deputy Director.
Zaidman joined the FAA in 1974 from the U.S. Navy Department. He later became the FAA's Manager, Systems Planning Branch, Office of Aviation Policy and Plans. From there he went on to become the Manager, International Planning and Analysis Division, Office of International Aviation, and from 1988–1990 the agency's Director of Operations Research.
In 1968, he graduated Brooklyn College with a Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degree in Mathematics, and in 1974 he earned a Master of Science Degree (M.S.) in Operations Research from George Washington University.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Yes. Thank you very much. I was just mentioning that when the planes were flown by cables, you know, it was—the electrical system was not quite as important. It was still very important. But now if those electric systems shorts out, I mean, you can't even—a stick doesn't do anything at that point. Is that right? So——
Mr. ZAIDMAN. A lot by wire.
Mr. ROHRABACHER [continuing]. That is really important now. But it always was. So—our next witness—and let me see if I got this—Rich Golaszewski—Mr. Golaszewski is a Vice President of GRA, Incorporated, and is recognized as an expert in the areas of aviation economics, safety, and public policy. And, Mr. Golaszewski, you may proceed.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD S. GOLASZEWSKI, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, GRA, INCORPORATED
Mr. GOLASZEWSKI. Thank you. I would like to thank both you and the Subcommittee for inviting me to speak and to share the Panel with such a distinguished group. My background is in economics and policy. I have worked on the economics of R&D and the role of government in R&D, comparisons of United States and foreign aerospace R&D, and international trade in aeronautics and space.
You have asked me to discuss four specific questions today—the usefulness of the FAA and NASA investment strategies, the potential for these investments to meet the challenges of the future national aerospace system, the appropriate Federal role in aeronautics research, and a comparison of U.S. industry/government collaboration with that of our foreign competitors. These are very complex questions and I hope I have addressed them adequately in my written remarks. Today, I am going to move briefly through a presentation because there are some things that I want to show you that are better said with a picture.
Basically, R&D matters. Transportation is not an end itself, but it is an input to economic growth, and R&D is a key to improved transportation. And that is what I tried to show in this graphic.
Both industry and government have substantially reduced their investment in aerospace R&D over the last 15 years. It is down by more than one-half in real-dollar terms. The cutback in government R&D is larger than the cutback in industry R&D.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What has happened to the U.S. share of the world market in aerospace? It has gone from approximately 70 percent in 1985 to somewhat under 50 percent today. So we are losing share in a very important industrial sector.
Aeronautics markets are large. Over the 1999 to 2008 period, we expect the market to be $810 billion worldwide. It is important for the U.S. economy, high-quality employment, and economic growth, that we have policies that help U.S. industry participate and grow in this sector.
What has happened in large transports? This is a picture which compares on the red line Boeing's orders, as a percent of total orders, with Airbus orders, as a percent of total orders. And what we can see is, we have gone from a share of over 70 percent in 1990 to somewhere around 50 percent today in orders. Now, orders don't really determine what happens today. That is more affected by products delivered. And the delivery trends will tend to lag the order trends. But even those are falling. So if you look out to the future, we see that the U.S. share of a very important market is at risk.
Where are the—where should government operate and where should industry operate? This is a very simplistic chart that tries to get at that. On the left side, there is technology readiness level 1, which is really basic research. It is almost pure science. On the right-hand side is operational use. And as we move from basic research to a commercial product in the market, we should see the government involvement reduced and the industry involvement increased. Today, NASA has to stop investing somewhere at technology level 4 to 6, but I believe that leaves an important gap unfilled. And that gap is really in risk reduction and validation of technology.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So what is the rationale for government investment? Really, the generally accepted roles of government are in the provision of public goods, such as national defense and aviation security, to remedy externalities, such as noise, emissions, safety capacity, and delay, and to deal with problems in appropriability. That is, if the private sector cannot earn a sufficient return on the research dollar, they won't invest enough and we will have less than an ideal amount of R&D.
We also want to work on economic growth and international trade. The structure of the industry means that a country can make itself better off by trying to capture a sustained advantage. And we see some other countries really trying to do this.
On the future—I think the collaborative roles of NASA and FAA have evolved quite well. There still is a need to invest for risk reduction and validation to make these technologies implementable. I think FAA needs to think harder about putting some funding into the operational facilities, to really bring technology in and to do the last steps. You are dealing with high-consequence systems where failures are extremely important. And you have to have more validation.
I think we need to get a better handle on air transportation demand. Because of September 11, we have changed security processes, travel times have increased, and costs have gone up, and we need to understand what is going to happen to the market.
On the level of effort, I think I have shown aerospace R&D is falling. The United States is losing share, not only in large transports, in regional jets, engines, systems, air traffic technology, and helicopters. Government needs to fill the gap in research prior to commercialization.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, on the foreign competition end. We have to recognize this is a global market and we need to look at global markets. Even if there are only one or two U.S. primes in a sector, that is not really relevant. What is relevant is how many companies there are competing around the world. All countries support research—military research, civil aeronautics research, research laboratories, and test facilities. Now, the Europeans have announced that they are adding additional dollars to aeronautics in their Sixth Framework Program and their vision for 2020. I have to say the foreign products of this are quality and cost-competitive.
Where do we differ? The Europeans also use repayable development grants for commercial programs provided by government. These are allowed by the U.S./EU Agreement. The original rationale was to support an industry that was state-owned and where capital markets were not well-formed. I would argue with half the market today. They are now a mature industry and we may need to rethink these types of policies. These grants reduce the risk of technology application. In fact, they may produce excess capacity. And that is very harmful because that, in return, lowers prices for everybody in the market and lowers returns for everybody in the market.
Is increasing U.S. R&D an effective counter strategy? Yes. If we invest in technology validation and risk reduction. I think we need to go further than we do today. And I think we also need to consider changes to the 1992 agreement, because I think the conditions which led to that agreement—it was good in its time—have now changed.
I would like to thank you. You will find a lot more of this type of material in my written statement for the record.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Golaszewski follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. GOLASZEWSKI
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to comment on the Administrations FY 2003 budget request for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) programs that support aeronautics-related research. I have been asked to address the following:
Assess FAA's and NASA's investment strategies and level of effort for civil aeronautics research and development and the usefulness of this technology to potentially serve manufacturers and users of commercial aircraft
Assess our future National Airspace System and the potential for current investments to meet its future challenges
Discuss appropriate federal role in aeronautics related research
Compare the collaboration between U.S. federal and industry partners with that of foreign competitors and their governments.
These are very significant questions and I do hope that my testimony is responsive to your request.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, however, I want to disclose my affiliations so that you are aware of them. I am an Executive Vice President of GRA, Incorporated (formerly Gellman Research Associates, Inc.). I have been with GRA for nearly my entire professional career. I am currently a member of the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board (ASEB) of the National Academy of Sciences. However, my comments today reflect my own opinions and do not reflect an official position of GRA or the ASEB. In addition, GE Capital has made a minority investment in GRA, but voting control remains with my partners and me at GRA.
I have studied federal aviation research policy in the U.S. and have made comparative analyzes of government support for aeronautics research in the U.S., Europe and Japan. Recently, I worked with members of an ASEB study committee on aviation research issues.(see footnote 3) I have also worked under contract with FAA and NASA to estimate the benefits of aviation research and to develop methodologies to quantify these.
I do not propose to tell you which R&D programs to fund, or how much the Nation should invest in aeronautics research. Rather, my testimony will focus on why it is appropriate for the government to fund aeronautics research and why this may be as important today as ever. I will also point out differences in the mode of government funding for the U.S. aerospace industry versus that in Europe and the differences in incentives that it may provide to industry and to market competition.
Some of the questions that come to mind about aviation research, whether at FAA or NASA, include the following:
Why support aeronautics at all; is there something unique about the industry that justifies continued governmental support of R&D?
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hasn't consolidation reduced competition in this industry?
Aren't aeronautics/aviation characterized as mature technologies?
Why can't the private sector advance aeronautics/aviation technology adequately?
All of these questions have a common genesis: Is there a legitimate continuing role for government in the advancement of aeronautics/aviation technology? I will provide information to help answer these questions.
THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN AVIATION RESEARCH
Aeronautics technology is a key input to the United States aviation industry. FAA and NASA research and technology (R&T) programs develop new technologies that are incorporated into U.S.-produced civil and military aircraft, space transportation vehicles, aircraft engines, avionics and aircraft systems. These research activities also support air traffic control modernization, aviation safety and environmental programs to reduce aircraft noise and aircraft engine emissions. As such, aeronautics research directly supports the achievement of national goals for aviation safety, capacity and environmental compatibility. It also supports national goals of promoting high quality employment and national security as well as helping to maintain the preeminence of the U.S. aerospace manufacturing industry in world markets.
The role of government in funding the civil and military aeronautics research in the U.S. has a long history dating back to the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. In general, the U.S. relies on private markets to produce the socially optimum levels of goods and services in our economy. But, important exceptions exist where markets may fail to function properly. These include the following situations:
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Public goods, such as national defense, are involved—Because people cannot be excluded from consuming a public good, they will not pay for it freely.
Where un-priced transactions (termed ''externalities'') exist such as with air pollution—If polluters do not bear the full cost of polluting, they will not restrain their production of it.
Where monopolies exist—Too few goods and services will be produced at too high a price relative to a competitive market.
Where innovators cannot fully capture sufficient returns from investment in new ideas or technologies (termed ''a lack of appropriability'').
There have been a number of studies that have outlined the rationale for government action in stimulating aeronautics research. Principal among these include the following:
Department of Transportation/National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Civil Aviation Research and Development Study, (1971).
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Economic Analysis of Aeronautical Research and Technology, (1982).
Gellman Research Associates, Incorporated, Economic Analysis of Aeronautical Research and Technology: An Update, Prepared for NASA's Office of Aeronautics (1992).
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Each of these studies concluded that industry would not invest sufficiently in aeronautics research and that, as a result, the United States would forego important economic benefits. For example, the 1982 Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Study noted that the appropriability problem would be most severe for basic research, the development of research tools and facilities, as well as applied research. This study also noted that the aeronautics industry is both research-intensive itself, and also relies on inputs from other high technology industries. This can magnify the impact of under-investment in technology.
In its 1992 update of the 1982 OSTP study, Gellman Research Associates (GRA) identified and assessed developments in the economics and technology literature, which had occurred since the prior study. It determined that the arguments for government investment in civil aeronautics research and technology were still well accepted in the economics literature. In addition, GRA identified new developments in the literature and how they might affect the government's role vis-à-vis investment in aeronautics technology.
STATE OF AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND THE U.S. INDUSTRY
There is substantial cooperation and coordination between FAA and NASA in aviation research.(see footnote 4) In certain areas, such as aircraft engine emissions and aviation capacity, NASA directly supports FAA. The FAA and NASA research programs support national policy objectives (safety, capacity, security, national defense, the environment, technology development, and low cost access to space). The aviation industry makes an important and growing contribution to the economy. As markets have globalized, the Nation has become increasingly dependent on a safe, reliable and relatively inexpensive air transportation system.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM
Air traffic control modernization has been a problem for the U.S. The FAA Operational Evaluation Plan (OEP) will allow us to keep pace with growth, but it will not expand capacity at the busiest airports to reduce delays below where they are today.(see footnote 5) New runways will offer some improvements, but they take much time and effort from planning to operation. I would suggest that, as a nation, we have not invested sufficiently in the research necessary to expand NAS capacity. The current budget for ATC operations and investment by FAA will approach $9 billion per year in FY 2003.(see footnote 6) FAA also invests about $3 billion per year in airport capacity. However, ATC and capacity programs make up only a small part (less than $50 million per year) of the FAA RE&D budget. NASA spends another $120 million per year on ATC and capacity research.
With the small amount of funds dedicated to research, the first phase of an ATC hardware acquisition in essence has to become an R&D program. In many cases, FAA embarks on a multi-year procurement of advanced systems before technology validation, demonstration, and risk reduction take place. This may, in part, be the cause of the many problems FAA has had in fielding technology. I believe that FAA has recognized this and is trying to change the way it does business. The OEP certainly reflects an incremental approach to technology improvement.
However, I can also state that a commercial aircraft manufacturer requires that all new technology applications be validated before they are applied to a new aircraft. The risks simply are too great. Thus, it may be necessary to increase what we fund in ATC research to reduce development and implementation risks. While NASA has a robust ATC research program, the real challenge may be in transfer and adoption of the technology in an operational environment by FAA. This is where increased collaboration between FAA and NASA may be needed as well as funds to demonstrate the technology at FAA facilities.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There have been calls for Presidential direction to develop a national aviation plan. In part, this is driven by a perception that the U.S. is falling behind in modernizing air traffic control.(see footnote 7) While I am skeptical of a point design for the future NAS, there is a need to articulate the policies that will guide the development of the future NAS.
SECURITY IMPACTS
Yet, just as the Nation (and the world) becomes more dependent on moving people and goods faster and more efficiently via air, important and difficult challenges have emerged. We are trying to ''re-invent'' parts of the aviation system in response to the September 11th terrorist acts. Aviation security is now at the forefront of attention. There is a substantial need for research that lets us work smarter in the aviation security arena. We need to use technology to focus security on those that pose the greatest threat. Whether it is smart cards or biometrics, we need to process passengers more quickly and focus on the real threats.(see footnote 8) If we cannot do this, and continue to require people to show up two hours before a flight, the value of the air transportation product will be seriously diminished with consequent harm to airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers.
While the new Transportation Security Administration will have responsibility for hardware and systems R&D, there still will be a need to analyze security's impact on the NAS. This suggests that FAA and NASA undertake research in the following areas:
Standards for certifying biometric and other personnel identification systems. Airports are already implementing such systems for access to secure areas of airports. There is a need to be sure that such systems deliver on the security that they promise. There also may be benefits to using a standard protocol so flight crews do not need to carry a different identity card for each airport.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The impact of enhanced security on the cost of and demand for air travel. If security requirements raise the cost of travel or the time required to make the trip, then they will affect the demand for air travel. This needs to be factored into projections of aviation activity that are used for airport and air traffic control investment decisions. We need to know not only impacts on the aggregate demand for air transportation, but also how these impacts vary by trip purpose, trip length, location and other factors.
There also are needs to develop models of the screening process to identify choke points and the impact of changes in capital and labor on passenger processing times. Such models need to be sensitive to the rate of alarms (including false positives) that require resolution.
THE NEED FOR AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
Delays were increasing dramatically before September 11th, and will once again become a problem as the industry recovers. Each year, airlines must add more ''padding'' to their schedules to account for more congestion in the system. At the same time, legitimate concerns over environmental issues (noise and emissions) are preventing additions to physical capacity at airports. Shortfalls in infrastructure capacity (airports and ATC) and problems with the environment are not easily addressed in the private sector. The resulting delays, and noise and emissions pollution are not even priced in the marketplace. There is a continued need for research to develop means to lessen aviation's impact on the environment. As a result, the private sector has inadequate incentives to address the very real problems imposed on third parties by aviation.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These new problems further compound a well-known problem. History suggests that private sector firms tend to under-invest in aeronautical research and technology. The findings in the economic literature are consistent over a number of studies: Returns to society as a whole from aeronautics R&T often exceed the returns of this R&T to industry. As a result, private firms will tend to under-invest relative to the levels desired by society. NASA's role is to bridge the gap so worthwhile projects are pursued in cases where the private sector has insufficient incentives to go it alone.(see footnote 9)
Now, many of the problems faced by the industry are even more complex and they are external to the marketplace. As such, they are less likely to be solved by the private sector. FAA and NASA aeronautics research programs are designed to fill the void by helping to develop and diffuse new research and technology to increase productivity and capacity while improving the environment and safety performance of the aviation industry.
Aeronautics has another important characteristic: it is subject to substantial declining costs and therefore is an ideal target for strategic trade initiatives by other countries. The U.S. share of aeronautics markets is declining in part because of the development of new programs overseas. Many of these programs receive substantial government support. Maintaining a strong technology base in the U.S. will require government participation. NASA's programs are designed to fill the very real gap between society's economically justified needs and the capability of the private sector to fulfill them.
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH AND ITS ECONOMIC ROLE
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Aviation and related industries make a significant contribution to the Nation's economic well being. As shown in Exhibit 1, the air transportation and directly related sectors of the economy contributed an estimated $259 billion to the Nation's economy in 1999. More importantly, air transportation is critical to the ''new economy'' which relies heavily on ''e-commerce'' and supply chain optimization to move goods rapidly as transportation has become a substitute for inventory. As an example, Dell Computers takes orders and assembles a customized computer for each customer. A recent story notes that Dell typically has physical possession of the parts that make up a computer for only eight hours.
77951h.eps
The aeronautics industry is also a central driver of economic growth in the U.S. A significant portion of the improvement in the average standard of living is due to the diffusion of technological advances. No industry consumes more high technology inputs from more industries than aeronautics. It has a very high and wide technology base that supports other key high growth industries. It creates high paying jobs in high technology industries that in turn produce the advancements that improve living standards. Exhibit 2 provides a schematic overview of how R&T impacts the economy. R&T outcomes are embodied in transportation products, systems and vehicle operations.
77951i.eps
TRENDS IN U.S. AEROSPACE R&D EXPENDITURES
The U.S. has significantly reduced its expenditures on aerospace R&D. As shown in Exhibit 3, both the company and federal funds dedicated have fallen in constant dollar terms, from a total of $30 billion in 1985 to under $14 billion in 1999, the latest year for which data were available. While a large portion of this R&D is defense related, it does show that the U.S. government and industry have reduced investment. How has this affected the position of the U.S. industry in world markets?
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
77951j.eps
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION
The future contributions of aeronautics to the U.S. economy are somewhat in doubt. As shown in Exhibit 4, the U.S. share of the world aerospace market is declining. Other countries, particularly a resurgent Europe, have become formidable commercial adversaries. Regional jet manufacturing is concentrated in Brazil, Canada and Europe.
77951k.eps
Some of Europe's gains at the expense of the U.S. industry have come as a result of subsidies through which their industry has locked in important production economies and marketing advantages that will be difficult to dislodge. Aeronautics is perhaps the classic case of an industry where strategic trade can succeed—there are important learning economies in production that provide the market leader with significant cost advantages not easily overcome by a private sector firm. Yet, maintaining the preeminence of the U.S. industry is attractive because the future demand for aeronautics products worldwide is projected to be robust as shown in Exhibit 5.
77951l.eps
In order to bring effects of international competition into sharper focus, I have compared the orders and deliveries of Boeing (including McDonnell Douglas) in the following charts. As can be seen in Exhibit 6, Airbus has reached approximately a 50 percent share of the market in terms of unit orders, an increase from 30 percent in 1990. Because the high growth in orders is not yet reflected in delivery, Airbus has not yet reached half of the aircraft delivered each year; however, its share of unit deliveries and the dollar value of delivered aircraft has increased from about 15 percent in 1990 to about 40 percent today. Make no mistake about it, Airbus builds very competitive aircraft.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
77951m.eps
The U.S. and Europe have reached an agreement limiting the level of government support for large transport aircraft. Under this, the U.S. provides principally indirect supports via NASA investments in research and spin-offs from DOD aeronautics programs. The Europeans also provide government support of research and technology programs as well as spin-offs from investments in defense technology. The European Union recently released a report, ''European Aeronautics, A Vision for 2020,'' which sets forth goals for the industry.(see footnote 10) Funding is provided via the EU Frameworks Program and is expected to total =1 billion. This is over and above the R&D support provided by the EU-member countries. In addition, European governments also can provide up to one-third of project development costs in the form of repayable royalties. These are, in effect, loans to the companies to develop new products, which are only repaid out of future sales.
The U.S. lacks a current broad-based assessment of foreign government support for aeronautics research and development. This is necessary for both Congress and the Administration to assess the level of aeronautics investment in the U.S. and its effects on the competitive position of U.S. industry.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS
Recently, some have questioned whether the U.S. government support of aeronautics R&T related to commercial aircraft is still warranted. Critics of the longstanding U.S. policy have noted that aircraft manufacturing may be a mature industry, which, they assert, may obviate the need for government research investments. Moreover, these critics suggest that, because Boeing is the sole U.S. manufacturer of large transport aircraft (subsequent to its acquisition of McDonnell Douglas), it has an effective monopoly in the market. As a result, it can fully appropriate the returns of its investments in new technology. However, this line of argument fails to recognize that the market for civil aircraft is global in scope, and that Boeing competes aggressively with Airbus for sales to U.S. airlines and those in other countries. Moreover, innovations are attributable not just to final assemblers, but to all companies in the supply chain. Finally, the literature suggests that appropriability problems occur regardless of industry structure.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While the civil aircraft manufacturing industry has existed since the 1930s, whether or not the industry is ''mature'' may have little bearing on the incentives for firms to invest in innovation. The conditions that lead to market failure in aeronautics research investment have little to do with the maturity of the industry.(see footnote 11) In addition, the globalization of the industry, the competition for high technology markets and the related employment and other benefits these industries provide may make government investment in aeronautics technology even more important for the U.S. in terms of investing for economic growth. A recent Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) report notes the importance of R&D to the U.S. economy:
''Increasing the productivity of the American workforce is the key to higher living standard and stronger economic growth in the future. Evidence indicates that investment in research and development (R&D) have large payoffs in terms of growth. R&D yields new products, improving the quality of life, and new processes, enabling American firms to reduce costs of production and become more competitive. Indeed, investments in R&D are estimated to account for half or more of the increase in output per person. Maintaining or increasing this country's R&D effort is essential if we are to increase the rate of productivity growth and improve American living standards.''(see footnote 12)
Exhibit 7 shows a schematic representation of the world aircraft industry. While the U.S. has one prime manufacturer (Tier 1) of large transport, its firms also participate as (Tier 2) subsystem suppliers (engines, landing gear, etc.), which embody both product technology as well as the processes to coordinate suppliers and product support. These firms require specialized engineering expertise and command of advanced materials and technologies as well as manufacturing techniques. Tier 3 firms are suppliers of airframe structures and parts. Repair and overhaul also can be considered a Tier 3 activity. Most countries, when seeking to enter the aerospace manufacturing industry, start with Tier 3 activities because they do not require extensive R&D capacity.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Firms in Tier 1 and Tier 2 represent the high technology segments of aerospace manufacturing. These are the areas important to economic growth in the U.S.(see footnote 13) These also are the areas that foreign governments target for development of their own aviation industries. Not only have the European governments fostered the entry of Airbus as a Tier 1 manufacturer but they are now seeking to replace U.S. Tier 2 firms that supply Airbus with European companies. For example, the U.S. recently protested an action by the French government to subsidize the development of flight control systems by Sextant to compete with a U.S. firm, Honeywell, as a supplier to Airbus.(see footnote 14)
77951n.eps
But, perhaps the more important reasons for supporting the FAA and NASA research programs have to do with the characteristics of the industry and the threats to the Nation's economic growth if new technology solutions are not found for the transportation by air of people and products.
The Nation has become increasingly dependent on a safe, reliable and relatively inexpensive air transportation system. Since 1978, when the airline industry was deregulated, inflation adjusted gross domestic product has increased by 62 percent,(see footnote 15) while total output of scheduled passenger air transportation (as measured by RPM's) has increased by 190 percent and total air freight ton miles flown have increased even more by 289 percent.(see footnote 16) The average real cost to consumers of these services has declined by 33 percent.(see footnote 17) In significant part, these gains have been due to the efficient transfer of the benefits of technology to consumers via competitive air transportation markets.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Technology only matters to the extent it is applied and impacts the delivery of transportation services, which in turn impact economic growth. Exhibit 8 shows a recent projection of the market for large transport aircraft. As can be seen, very few new design aircraft will enter the fleet in the next 15 years. As such, NASA research needs to cover not only new vehicle technology, but also traditional areas of government involvement such as defense technology, aviation safety, environmental concerns and congestion. The latter two areas are likely to represent real constraints to growth in the air transportation sector and, in turn, to growth in the economy. NASA also should focus on assuring that U.S. companies have the technology to be represented on multinational aircraft programs. These may encompass systems and equipment that also could be applied, in some cases, to the production of existing aircraft designs or retrofit to the existing fleet.
77951o.eps
Technological advances over the past 30 years have enabled a ten-fold improvement in aviation safety, a doubling of fuel efficiency with reductions in emissions per operation, a 50 percent reduction in cost and an order of magnitude reduction in noise.
Advances in computers, communications and air transportation have made large improvements in productivity possible. Today's globalized marketplace requires doing more with fewer resources. With the advent of e-commerce, globalization will accelerate as products and services become available from sources all over the world.
The availability of safe, reliable and relatively low cost air transportation is a key to realizing the benefits of the supply chain revolution. For example, Dell Computer takes physical control of the parts that make up a computer for less than eight hours. Increasingly, the main inventory carrying charges faced by world-class organizations like Dell will be when the goods are in transit to the ultimate customer.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
FAA AND NASA INVESTMENT STRATEGIES
The FAA and NASA are generally investing in those areas where the private sector is not likely to produce a socially optimum level of R&D. However, it is my belief that R&D spending is falling victim to other pressures at both FAA and NASA. In the former case, increased spending for aviation security has put pressure on all FAA budget areas. At NASA, the cost growth in the Shuttle and International Space Station has crowded out funding for aeronautics and aerospace R&D. I believe we are also seeing the long-term impacts of reduced R&D spending. As shown in Exhibit 9, it takes over 15 years for a technology to move from basic research to operational use. Thus, we may be experiencing today the impacts from the reduced real spending in aeronautics research over the last 15 years as shown in Exhibit 3 above.
77951p.eps
There should be additional R&D to help us understand the air transportation systems, particularly how the events of September 11th, and the reaction to them may affect the future demand for transportation. As noted above, there have been a number of calls for a national air transportation policy initiative. An understanding of the current system and the tools to model its evaluation and growth paths are an essential underpinning of any such activity.
There is a critical need to make sure that the U.S. industry (and government in the case of ATC) can adopt the fruits of research. Technology risk reduction and validation are two areas where more investment is needed. Generally, NASA takes technology to a readiness level of 4 to 6 and then expects industry or FAA to bring it into operational use. If we want to facilitate technology adoption, then the government may have to participate within industry and other government bodies to validate and reduce the risk of applying new technology. Exhibit 10 is a stylized view of the relative government and industry efforts as technology matures. There is a role for government to stay involved longer in the process although the modality of involvement might change. While government may fund almost all basic research in aeronautics, cooperative government-industry programs may be needed to demonstrate technology. Otherwise, either U.S. industry will apply the technology later than desirable, or it may get adopted first by a foreign competitor.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
77951q.eps
AERONAUTICS RESEARCH POLICY
The Office of Science and Technology Policy has recognized that certain technologies are ''critical'' as far as the future competitive posture of the U.S. in international markets. The Defense Department, Commerce Department and industry have produced similar lists of critical technologies. While these technologies span many industries, almost all lists include aeronautics technology, and many other technologies that are inputs to the aeronautics industry. There is an increasing recognition that countries that successfully develop these technologies will increase their own economic well being in the future. Further, government policies, which remedy industry under-investment in these technologies are likely to be have large, long run benefits to the U.S. economy and the competitive posture of its industry.
As the world economy becomes increasingly global, some have questioned whether this might change the role that FAA and NASA play in the U.S. aeronautics industry. Globalization has been underway for a long time in the aeronautics sector. Both Boeing and Airbus have suppliers and risk sharing partners in a number of countries. There are a number of multinational consortia in aircraft engines (CFM, International Aero Engines, BMW-Rolls Royce, etc.), transatlantic acquisitions have taken place (such as Rolls-Royce acquisition of Allison) and more mergers and acquisitions activity is expected to take place. Non-U.S. aircraft dominate the emerging regional jet market, yet U.S. engine, avionics, and systems suppliers account for a significant share of the value of these regional aircraft.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the global economy, companies and countries rival for high technology value added. Aeronautics is both research intensive and export intensive and supports high quality employment. Therefore, a key capability for the U.S. is to participate in this industry by providing high technology value added, whether as prime contractors, risk sharing partners, or as suppliers. A recent paper notes that an increasing share of R&D will be produced outside the U.S.(see footnote 18) It also notes that foreign firms will play a large role in production, technology development and research in the U.S. (Because of its research infrastructure, the U.S. is a particularly attractive platform for R&D investment by both U.S. and foreign firms.) Mowery also notes that intellectual property, technological capability and investment are also highly mobile. As a result, he suggests:
Policies to restrict foreign access to research are not likely to be effective or in the U.S. interest
The U.S. should focus on improving access to the growing body of R&D produced elsewhere
U.S. policy should focus on the U.S. adoption of and implementation of new technologies from U.S. and international sources
This suggests that the capability to absorb technology developed elsewhere will become increasingly important to the U.S. NASA could facilitate this by developing the capacity to monitor foreign technology development and to disseminate results to U.S. industry. NASA policies also must recognize that U.S. firms are now part of multi-national firms and that U.S. companies supply high technology inputs to foreign-led aircraft and engine programs.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SUMMARY OF WHY THE GOVERNMENT HAS A ROLE IN AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
I also believe that government needs to develop better data on aerospace research expenditures for the U.S. as well as for Europe, Japan and elsewhere. It is hard to gauge whether the U.S. is maintaining its position or falling behind in key technology areas.
Why should the government invest in aeronautics research? Does the private sector have sufficient incentives to undertake the right amount of research? These were addressed in GRA's 1999 study of aeronautics research.
High technology industries have historically played particularly important roles in economic growth in the United States. Aeronautics has a very prominent role in the high technology sector because it consumes inputs from virtually every high technology industry.
Recent economic studies suggest that about half of the growth in the standard of living in the United States (as measured by output per worker) is attributable to returns to research and development and that most of this is due to the diffusion of R&D results. NASA's role in the creation and diffusion of aeronautics R&T is particularly critical given the characteristics of an industry which tends to under-invest in these critical, growth enhancing activities.
Firms in the aeronautics industry do not have sufficient incentives to conduct socially optimal levels of R&T—that is, private firms will tend to under-invest in these activities. Often it is the case that while industry returns (and consumer benefits) from particular projects may warrant investment from a social point of view, no single firm can capture returns sufficient to induce it to invest in one or more of these projects.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under-investment by the private sector is most likely to occur for projects leading to neutral technologies—primarily discipline research, infratechnologies, and certain types of applied research—because these are the farthest removed from commercial application, and because returns to these projects are least likely to be appropriable by a single firm. Under-investment can be high even in industries with few firms.
The government should intervene to ensure that those R&T projects are conducted that lead to neutral technologies that otherwise would not be developed because of the problem of under-investment. Government intervention may be warranted in certain cases to develop or validate technologies when the private sector cannot appropriate sufficient returns and where there are net positive benefits to the U.S. economy.
U.S. policy, in the past, has concentrated on promoting innovation; for technology to be adopted by U.S. industry, policies should support both innovation and diffusion. Industry/government cooperative research is one means of promoting technology diffusion, with NASA serving as a bridging institution.
Aeronautics technology is often characterized by increasing returns to scale. When two or more increasing returns technologies compete for adoption, the technology that gains the early lead may corner the market and lock out potentially superior technologies. NASA may want to encourage the exploitation of promising technologies which industry may not have incentives to pursue in the short run, but which may have high payoffs in the long run.
Advances in international trade theory—often referred to as strategic trade theory—have been developed to analyze policies for industries characterized by monopolistic competition. The international aeronautics industry is characterized by high financial and technical barriers to entry, large learning curve effects on costs and the presence of labor rents—all conditions associated with monopolistic competition. The new trade theory shows that a country can make itself economically better off by subsidizing industries of this type. Airbus Industrie is often cited as a manifestation of strategic trade policies using subsidies from European governments. The new trade theory indicates that the most effective U.S. response to Airbus—both in terms of helping U.S. industry to compete and in inducing the Airbus governments to change their behavior—may be to provide similar types and magnitudes of financial support to its industry. This would represent a shift of U.S. policy from reliance on negotiation to limit government subsidies of Airbus.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is particularly appropriate that the government intervene in the aeronautics R&T market because aeronautics output depends upon both high research intensity and a wide technology base. Like other high technology industries, aeronautics R&T represents a significant percentage of the value of final output. What distinguishes aeronautics is its dependence on inputs from so many other high technology industries. The high-wide technology base of the aeronautics industry magnifies the possibility of under-investment in relevant R&T. As a result, government intervention should include R&T efforts that cut across industry boundaries.
There also is increased awareness that air transportation plays an important role in the movement of goods and people in the ''new economy,'' which is based on just-in-time inventory and high degree of personal mobility. It also is being recognized that technology can play an increasingly important role in removing some of the constraints to growth in the air transportation system.
I would like to thank you for attention and interest in a topic that is so vital to the future of the Nation.
77951r.eps
77951s.eps
77951t.eps
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Well, we appreciate your analysis here. And I look forward to examining those charts with a microscope and—or with a magnifying glass because some of the points that are being made are very important. And thank you very much for your work. Our next witness, Mr. David Swain, is Senior Vice President of Engineering and Technology and Chief Technology Officer at The Boeing Company. And we are very pleased to have you with us. And I wonder if you are learning as much as we are by the testimony we have heard. So please proceed, Mr. Swain.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID SWAIN, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, THE BOEING COMPANY
Mr. SWAIN. I will start all over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to share Boeing's perspective on the importance of NASA's Aeronautics Technology programs and the FAA's Research, Engineering, and Development programs.
I want to emphasize three points this morning. First, the Boeing Company values the important roles NASA and the FAA play in the future of aviation and the aviation system. Going forward, we believe the priorities of the aeronautics enterprise need to be first on aviation safety and security, then on aviation system capacity, and finally on enabling advances in aerospace vehicles.
We believe integrating existing and emerging aviation system and vehicle technology——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Mr. Swain, if you would hold on one moment. It is the intention of the Chair to have our last two witnesses testify, which should be about 10 minutes, which would give us then five minutes to go and vote. And then we would be in recess for about 15 minutes while members go and vote. So if you would proceed, Mr. Swain.
Mr. SWAIN. Okay. We believe integrating aviation system and vehicle technology using a systems approach will result in significant improvements in productivity with corresponding positive economic impact to all Americans.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Second, I want to commend Administrator O'Keefe and Sam Venneri for the recently released Aeronautics Blueprint that Sam showed you. It is a welcome contribution to the aviation strategy. An important conclusion of that report is: ''the cost of inaction is gridlock, constrained mobility, unrealized economic growth, and loss of U.S. aviation leadership.''
Finally, in view of the aviation security, capacity and competitive challenges that lie ahead for us, we believe—we view with concern the level of government investment related to aeronautics in NASA and to the air traffic control in the FAA.
Next year we celebrate a century of aviation progress that has been enabled by technologies. What lies ahead for our new scientists and engineers is nothing less important than shaping the world we will be in, in the 21st century—just as our predecessors have accomplished before us.
Government, particularly NASA and the Department of Defense, must continue to work in close partnership in their historical role of supporting break-through, pre-competitive, revolutionary research that has a longer time horizon than industry alone can support. The FAA must continue to support research to improve the current aviation system and to transition new technologies and validate them in the operational construct.
Turning the NASA Blueprint into reality will require sustained partnership between successive Administrations and Congresses. It will require collaboration among all stakeholders—government, academic, industry, and the American public. It will also require reversing the recent funding trends and increasing the investment in these areas.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Budget constraints have meant fewer technology initiatives, fewer prototype demonstration programs, and, thus, fewer opportunities to develop and transition leap-ahead technologies to address national needs. Importantly, this also has meant fewer opportunities to attract and engage a new generation of aerospace talent on which our Nation will depend in the future.
I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks on the aviation system. The future growth in air transportation demands a safe, secure, efficient, and affordable air traffic management system. Even prior to September 11, the aviation industry faced growing system capacity constraints that could not keep pace with growing demand and adequately respond to unplanned disruptions such as bad weather. This resulted in unprecedented numbers of flight delays and cancellations over the past few years costing billions of dollars in economic loss annually to services providers and to consumers alike. Our analysis shows, as aviation grows, this situation would get worse.
Of course, the shutdown of our entire system on September 11 had a far more devastating impact to the national economy, and it is still being felt today. While the rapid shutdown of the entire national airspace system was a remarkable feat by the FAA and other aviation safety personnel, we should make every effort to invest in developing new systems and procedures that will prevent shutdowns in the future.
Boeing believes a key enabler is technology to move us to a new kind of air traffic management system, one that is based on secure, robust, and timely communication information to improve situational analysis, collaborative decision-making, and rapid responses to system users, operators, and security officials. This can be accomplished by investing over the long term in a new ATM system.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The challenge is to overcome delays, gridlock, and other problems that we have seen in today's system. This is a very important issue for the 21st century. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Swain follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID SWAIN
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am David Swain, Senior Vice President of Engineering and Technology and Chief Technology Officer for the Boeing Company. I appreciate the opportunity to share Boeing's perspective on the importance of NASA's Aeronautics Technology programs and the FAA's Research, Engineering & Development programs.
I want to emphasize three points this morning.
First, the Boeing Company values the important roles of NASA and the FAA in the future of aviation and the aviation system. Going forward, we believe the priorities of the aeronautics enterprise need to be first on aviation safety and security, then on aviation system capacity, and finally on enabling advances in aerospace vehicles.
We believe integrating existing and emerging aviation system and vehicle technology using a systems approach will result in significant improvements in productivity with corresponding positive economic benefits for all Americans.
Second, I want to commend Administrator O'Keefe and Dr. Venneri for the recently released Aeronautics Blueprint. It is a welcome contribution to aviation strategy. An important conclusion of the report is that ''the cost of inaction is gridlock, constrained mobility, unrealized economic growth, and loss of U.S. aviation leadership.''
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, in view of the aviation security, capacity and competitive challenges that lie ahead of us, we view with concern the level of government investment related to aeronautics in NASA and to air traffic control in the FAA.
Next year we celebrate a century of aviation progress that has been enabled by technology. What lies ahead for our new scientists and engineers is nothing less important than shaping what the world will be like in the 21st century—just as our predecessors did for our country in the 20th century.
Government, particularly NASA and the DOD, must continue to work in close partnership in its historical role of supporting break-through, pre-competitive, revolutionary research that has a longer time horizon than industry can support before it is mature enough to be considered for transition to product development. NASA and DOD are strengthening their partnership to work together on Aeronautics and space technologies. Future aerospace vehicles ranging from space, hypersonic, supersonic, subsonic and rotorcraft fit into this spectrum of R&D interest. The FAA must continue support of research to improve the current aviation system and to transition technology into operational implementation.
Notwithstanding the significant implications of aeronautics research for national security and economic growth, some question the government's role in this arena. This is not the case with our aerospace competitors in Europe and Asia. Europe, for example, prizes global aerospace leadership and a world class transport system as a goal by 2020. The goal is underpinned by a supportive public, favorable policy regulation, and a rigorous research agenda. To quote from the European Vision: ''European aeronautics has grown and prospered with support of public funding, and this support must continue if we are to achieve our objective of global leadership.''
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Turning the NASA Aeronautics Blueprint into reality will require sustained partnership between successive Administrations and Congresses. It will require collaboration among all the stakeholders—government, academia, industry, and the American public. It will also require reversing recent funding trends and increasing NASA's investment in aeronautics research.
Budget constraints have meant fewer technology initiatives and fewer prototype demonstration programs and thus fewer opportunities to develop and transition leap ahead technologies to address national needs. Importantly, this also has meant fewer opportunities to attract and engage a new generation of aerospace talent on which our nation will depend in the future.
While not the subject of today's hearing, NASA aerospace research also contributes to safer, more reliable and lower cost access to space. Military and economic security is increasingly dependent on space based assets. Fundamental technology challenges remain in this arena, including lighter weight, low cost airframes, propulsion, and health management systems. The NASA Aerospace budget proposal addresses these needs and should be supported.
I would like to focus the remainder of my remarks today on the aviation system. The future growth of air transportation demands a safe, secure, efficient and affordable air traffic management system. Even prior to September 11th, the aviation industry faced growing system capacity constraints that could not keep pace with growing demand and adequately respond to unplanned disruptions such as severe weather. This resulted in unprecedented numbers of flight delays and cancellations over the past few years costing billions in economic losses annually to service providers and consumers alike. Our analysis showed the situation would only worsen.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Of course the shutdown of our entire civil aviation system on September 11 had a far more devastating impact on our national economy that is still being felt today. While the safe and rapid shutdown of the entire national airspace system was a remarkable feat and a tribute to aviation safety personnel, we should make every effort to invest in developing new systems and procedures to prevent future recurrence.
Boeing believes that a key enabler to move beyond the status quo is secure, robust and timely communication of information to improve situational awareness, collaborative decision-making and rapid responses for system users, operators and security officials. This could be accomplished by investing in modern ATM infrastructure featuring:
Secure, broadband communications between aircraft and the ground
High-fidelity trajectory-based operations that can accurately predict aircraft intent further in the future than today's methods and detect deviations on a system-wide basis
Real time sharing of information via a secure common information network
Expanded communication, navigation and surveillance (CNS) coverage provided by satellites on a global basis.
The challenge ''to overcome delays, gridlock, and other problems in today's aviation system, and to prepare for growing demands in the 21st century'' is one of four elements in NASA's Aeronautics Blueprint.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has also received the attention of the Congressionally mandated Presidential Commission on the Future of the Aerospace Industry. Dr. John Marburger, the President's Science Advisor testified in November before the Commission on the urgent need for a new aviation infrastructure to address both security and capacity needs. The Aerospace Commission will soon issue interim recommendations in response. We believe these recommendations will call for the creation of a multi-agency coordinating council with the leadership responsibility and authority to implement an integrated plan to reach this national objective; and, robust FY 2003 and future NASA and FAA R&D funding for this initiative.
I recommend that the Congress support the aviation system vision in the Aeronautics Blueprint, and the Aerospace Commissions' prescription for decisive action along with the necessary policies and funding to develop a clear roadmap for success.
In closing, I respectfully suggest that the Congress take a long-term view of the Nation's investments in aeronautics technology and the return on those investments to the American taxpayer. Past investments have greatly improved the lives of all Americans. However, this is more about the future, about what the future consequences to national security and economic growth will be from not investing. Such a long-term view necessarily starts with full support of the NASA and FAA FY 2003 budget requests that are before you, and I believe will justify increases to those budgets.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I welcome the Committee's questions.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Swain. And our final witness is John Cassidy, Dr. John Cassidy, Senior Vice President for Science and Technology at United Technologies Corporation. Dr. Cassidy, you have got five minutes.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN F. CASSIDY, JR., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH CENTER
Dr. CASSIDY. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gordon, greetings. A special hello to Congressman Larson. Every once in a while my children ask me what I do, and I find that difficult to answer. But for more than 30 years now, I have been involved in industrial R&D and my job, along with my colleagues, is to protect the future. And I think that is what we are talking about here today. I would echo the comments of some of my Panel colleagues here in terms of taking a systems solution as we move forward.
In addition, we at UTC, and, I think, many in industry, applaud the work that NASA has done in forming a vision of the future in their blueprint study. What we need to do is to think carefully about the details of how to proceed toward the realization of that vision of the future.
NASA will be a key. But I think there are a few things that can be done to restore the balance. And as one of my colleagues mentioned here, NASA's role in revolutionary, high-risk activities is an important element of their program in the past, the present, and the future. But I do think we need to restore the balance toward the risk reduction activities.
Within UTC, we use a terminology very similar to what NASA uses. A level 6 means that technology is ready to go to the marketplace. And in recent years, either for philosophical or, perhaps, budget pressures, collaborative activities between NASA and industry have declined and zeroed out in that particular category. We would strongly recommend movement to reinstate those at some level.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Relative to Mr. Gordon's comment about the consequences of the declining budget—over the past decade, funding to NASA has decreased by 50 percent. We are encouraged to see a beginning of a reversal of that trend in terms of the current proposals for the next fiscal year. We do not think it is enough. And we think that we need to look very carefully together as to how to accelerate that.
The consequences of not doing this are two-fold. One, our competitive position in the world scene will be eroded. And, in fact, limits in technology may well reduce our ability to essentially prosecute civil aviation industry around the world.
In conclusion, UTC, along with our industrial colleagues, are committed to work with NASA and the government agencies to develop the technology to support the vision that has been so ably defined. Thank you very much for the opportunity to chat with you today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cassidy follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. CASSIDY, JR.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Gordon:
My name is Dr. John Cassidy and I am Senior Vice President, Science and Technology with United Technologies Corporation. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today before the House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. I also would like to extend a special greeting to Congressman John Larson, who represents United Technologies' hometown of Hartford, Connecticut in Congress.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION
United Technologies Corporation provides high-technology products and services to the aerospace and building systems industries throughout the world. UTC's industry-leading companies are Pratt & Whitney, Carrier, Otis, UTC Fuel Cells, Hamilton Sundstrand and Sikorsky. UTC invested $2.1 billion in research and development last year, including $845 million from U.S. government contracts.
CIVIL AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
The importance of civil aeronautics research cannot be overstated. Government sponsored research is essential to finding appropriate solutions to many of the problems facing our nation's aviation system. In fact, it is critical to recognize the necessity of a system wide solution. The entire aviation system must be examined. This means airplanes, engines, the air traffic control system and land management must all be considered as we develop solutions to aviation's capacity, environmental, safety and security problems.
NASA's role in finding technological solutions has been, and remains, key. NASA research accelerates the introduction of new technologies into the commercial marketplace. Without NASA research, cost constraints would prevent industry from bringing new technologies forward as quickly as technologically possible, and some promising technologies might never be implemented at all.
That is why UTC strongly supports NASA's Aeronautics Blueprint. We agree ambitious technology goals are very important as government and industry work together to define and develop the next generation civil aviation aircraft. But NASA must not focus unduly on revolutionary goals at the expense of more near-term technologies. The proper focus is on a complete technology plan that balances seamless development of near-term and next generation technologies.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we talk about the future of civil aviation, one of UTC's goals has been to prevent environmental concerns from artificially constraining growth of commercial aviation. Two of the most significant environmental concerns for us, as the corporate parent of an engine manufacturer, are noise and emissions. That is why UTC, primarily through our Pratt & Whitney division, has been very involved with the NASA programs known as UEET (Ultra Efficient Engine Technology) and QAT (Quiet Aircraft Technology).
The UEET program is designed to develop high-payoff, high-risk technologies to enable breakthroughs in propulsion system efficiency that will spawn a new generation of U.S. aircraft engines. The breakthrough technologies are focused on increasing the efficiency of propulsion system components and demonstrating that those increases can be sustained when they are incorporated into new engines. Future propulsion systems will be greatly simplified, more economical, operationally efficient and reliable, achieve higher performance. Importantly, they also have the potential for much-reduced environmental impact with a broad range of aircraft applications.
The QAT program is designed to contribute to NASA's 25-year goal of a noise constraint-free air transportation system with objectionable aircraft noise contained within the airport boundaries. Part of this vision is a transportation system with no need for curfews, noise budgets or noise abatement procedures. Benefits to the public include improved quality of life, readily available and affordable air travel and continued U.S. global leadership of the industry.
As we pursue new technologies for environmental solutions, we must be certain of future regulatory requirements that will govern us. Regulatory requirements must be consistent. For example, often progress on one environmental issue may come at the expense of another. This complicates the job of the designers who must make technical trades while at the same time trying to make advances in all areas simultaneously. As we move forward, our regulators must keep the environmental playing field level.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Another area of federal research, one that is important to our Sikorsky division, is in the area of rotorcraft technology. UTC believes that rotorcraft is an essential element of civil aviation. We were disappointed with the elimination of the rotorcraft program from NASA's budget. While cuts to the program have been driven by budget concerns, they highlight a major concern for UTC and all of U.S. industry and that is the declining NASA aeronautics budget.
CHALLENGES TO CIVIL AERONAUTICS RESEARCH
Over the last decade, funding for NASA's aeronautics program has fallen by about 50 percent, with current funding expected to be less than $600 million annually. This steep decline has severely reduced NASA's ability to work with U.S. aviation manufacturers, making it more difficult for NASA-sponsored technology to reach the commercial marketplace in a timely manner.
In the past, NASA has had sufficient funding to bring aeronautics research up through technology demonstration—in NASA parlance—technology readiness level (TRL) 6. This level of technical readiness is necessary to complete the technology maturation process. It allows a new technology to be considered when a company is preparing to bring a new product to market. Importantly, in keeping with current practice, UTC believes it is appropriate for the industry participation and cost sharing to climb as the technology readiness level approaches 6.
However, if NASA continues to terminate its research at technology development—that is, at technology readiness level 4—then implementation of new technology will continue to be slowed. Therefore, as a start to bringing aeronautics research in the UEET and QAT programs to technology readiness level 6, UTC supports an additional $10 million in NASA spending for each program in fiscal year 2003 and substantially more funding in the following budget years. Additionally, at present the UEET/QAT programs retain about 80 percent of the funding for in-house NASA work, while distributing only 20 percent of the funding to industry and universities. Therefore, we also recommend that the majority of any additional funding be used to increase NASA's contracts to industry, thereby ensuring that TRL 6 is reached in a timely manner.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The European Union has initiated competing aeronautic technology programs also focused on similar goals in emissions and acoustics. The European programs achieve a technology readiness level of 6 by developing and testing component technologies in two full-scale demonstration engines. Both are under construction by our European competitors. The EU expenditure is estimated at four times NASA's current funding profile. Further, 80 percent of the EU funding will flow to industry, while the remaining 20 percent will fund university and government labs. If NASA funding doesn't keep pace, we risk being placed at a competitive disadvantage with our European competitors.
Another challenge facing civil aeronautics research in the U.S. is competition between space and aeronautics funding within NASA. While UTC supports NASA's efforts in both aeronautics and space, we believe the two programs represent fundamentally different, but equally important, aspects of NASA's role. In the area of space technology and research, NASA is the developer and user of its technology. However, in aeronautics technology and research, NASA is a source of technology that industry takes and turns into civil and military products, with little if any NASA participation. Programs in these two disparate areas should most definitely not be forced to compete for funding. While it is certainly true that NASA's aeronautics programs must be able to justify themselves, they should not also have to compete with space programs that are an order of magnitude greater in size.
NASA's aeronautics programs should be insulated from programmatic impacts on the space side of the agency and should be funded at a level that ensures the excellent work done at the NASA labs can be handed off successfully to industry. UTC believes this approach will allow NASA's investment to provide the best return to the American taxpayer.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONCLUSION
Historically, propulsion has been the key to meeting emerging aerospace transportation demands. You can be assured that UTC is committed to developing future propulsion and other aerospace technologies that will allow us accommodate the growth anticipated in civil aviation.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer questions from Members of the Subcommittee.
BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN F. CASSIDY, JR.
77951u.eps
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Dr. Cassidy, and all the witnesses, we thank you very much. We are going to go vote now. We will be in—we are going to be recessed for 15 minutes. And let us see what time it is. It is—so at 11 o'clock, we will reconvene for the questions and dialogue. So, thank you very much. We are in recess.
[Recess]
Discussion
Chairman ROHRABACHER [continuing]. The Ranking Member, just a few more minutes. And which reminds me—I see that we do have a moment—of a story that I heard. And it is about these two fellows who were sitting in prison. And one of them walks over to the window and looks out of the bars and he turns to his friend and he says, you know, the food was better in here when you were governor. The recorder doesn't have to write that one down. Of course, we are leading up to St. Patrick's Day, and, you know, we had the first St. Patrick's Day party of the season. So if the Ranking Member doesn't get here soon, you are going to have to hear a St. Patrick's Day joke.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So anyway—there is a great need to—oh, darn. They just had to—almost had to sit through an Irish joke. So with that, the Committee is called to order. And we have heard some fine testimony today, some thought-provoking testimony. Each one of our members will have five minutes of questions and answers. If there are some members who would like to take a second round or, I think that there are some members who have a special interest in this, we would be happy to extend them a little bit more time and a little bit of extra time if they have some issues they would like to cover.
In the meantime, I would like to—first—and, again, before I go onto questions, mention that Dan Goldin put an enormous amount of time and energy into this area of research. And I know people had their differences with Dan Goldin and—but let me just say that I think Dan did a lot of hard work in this. And some of the testimony I have heard today, although Mr. O'Keefe's name is on the bottom, I know that Mr. Goldin really did put a lot of research and effort into making these things a reality.
And I think one of the wonderful things about this Subcommittee, and hopefully our Committee as a whole, is that we are not looking for partisan credit or things like that. We are trying to do what is right for America. And this testimony that we have heard today certainly reflects that.
NASA Research and Development Investments in Aeronautics
Sam, there is some—although your testimony did indicate that there was, you know, a lot of money that we had to deal with, and you looked at the overall package that we have in the next five years, there seems to be some reduction in the amount of money necessary, or allocated, toward fundamental research and aeronautics. And maybe you could tell us what areas you think that maybe have run their course and you—and you are not spending as much money on or how you are able to cope with this—is it not a large cutback, but a small reduction.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VENNERI. Yeah. In the President's budget in fiscal year '02, it was $527 million. The budget we got from Congressional actions is really closer to $600 million. So if you look at '02 to '03, there is a delta down. But it is really on an upswing if I look at the Presidential submission. So, you know, that is kind of just record-keeping. The reality is, we are dealing with, as we are here now, to look and see what we do over the next five years.
Now, in—what we also did in '02 that is carried over into '03 and beyond is, we looked at our program activities and we took $130 million and reprioritized and restructured that into areas that we felt had a higher payoff, in terms of some of the working capacity, the environmental issues, and noise and safety. So even in a budget that looks relatively flat, we are not measuring progress by percentage of budget changes, positive or negative. What we are looking at is content and restructuring work in that regard.
Direction of NASA Research
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Let me note that some of the things that you have been talking about with NASA are aimed at making the system work better for the American people. And I understand that is an important goal and there is no doubt about it. When we are—congestion, making sure we have less congestion, making sure things are safer, no doubt.
But a lot of the testimony that we have heard and a lot of the many concerns that have been raised today deal with the competitiveness. And I would like to ask Mr. Swain, now that we have someone from NASA and the FAA here, you have a company—that we want your company to be able to out-compete those European guys—what specifically would you like to have them doing either more of or begin doing what they are not doing, in terms of fundamental research that would help you out-compete your foreign competitors?
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SWAIN. Let me go back to a comment I made in my remarks. Our first priority is really the air traffic management system, the aviation system, because if it is constrained, it really doesn't matter that much if we compete better or worse. It is going to limit our business. As we look at the economic drivers, the total market in aviation will grow considerably in the next 20 years.
In our view, that is only enabled if we kind of reinvent the air traffic management system, which is a hard thing to do. So it takes research, focused effort over the long term.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. NASA has been—NASA, as I say, to the credit of Dan Goldin, they have been putting a lot of time and effort into that very issue. But there is not some swept aileron or some type of internal computer system or something that would make your planes more competitive with Airbus that you would think that you can direct.
Mr. SWAIN. I think——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. The FAA or NASA would want them to do.
Mr. SWAIN. Well, my second priority—were—I certainly have priority in aerospace vehicles or airplanes, which would include both ways to make our airplanes more efficient, which tends to be lighter structures or improved propulsion systems, which, my partner over here knows more about than I do. Both of those are critical to our long-term success.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Well, you just said your partner knows more about that. Okay. Here you have got it, Dr. Cassidy. Let us hear your demand on the FAA or NASA that is going to make it possible for your company to provide for Mr. Swain's company what he needs to be more competitive with those Europeans who are coming behind us, or might even be right next to us in the race.
Dr. CASSIDY. I think we ought to have, as part of our long-term vision, the notion of perfection. A perfectly invisible, perfectly efficient, power plant integrated with the airframes that are going to carry people and material around the world. Translate that into action, that means, I would say, it would be increased emphasis on some of the noise and emissions programs, both at the fundamental level, but, as I indicated, as well as my colleagues, in the testimony, a reduction to practice. So there is a balance between the two.
And those elements are addressed in the blueprint and in such programs as QAT and UEET. So I would say the vision is good. Let us make sure we focus on some of the fundamental issues that then break any barriers to constraining the possibility to move forward economically.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Well, thank you very much. Noise and emissions—I hear that. How about materials? How about lighter-weight materials and—such as them?
Dr. CASSIDY. Noise and emissions are the target or the end result. Materials are fundamental to achieving that, not only in terms of their weight, but in their performance. In the case of the gas turbine engine, the internal temperature, the hotter you can make it, the better off you are going to be against both the emissions and noise if the rest of the system is properly defined.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you go back and look at the history of technology, every advance, including electronics, computers, has essentially been enabled by an advance in materials. So without question, it is a very, very important area to focus on.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. There are—just a note before I turn this over to Mr. Gordon. The Chair has a special interest in the development of a new type of craft that the—with jets going up and down, that vertical landing and vertical takeoff, that also is involved with developing composite materials as a way of lowering the weight of the craft.
And I think that this type of materials research, both in terms of the hardness and strength of new materials for engines, but also the use of composites and other type of materials that would make it lightweight for structures, will permit us new alternatives in the future which would affect, of course, noise. If you are—if we could have planes landing like this, rather than having to take off from the long runways, that would be very helpful, and materials might assist in that. I appreciate that, and, Mr. Gordon, you may proceed.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I have to admit, I came into this hearing concerned that the Administration's request was, as I said earlier, about half of what we spent on R&D in NASA in 1998. But the Chairman practically begged all of you to give him some excuse to ask for more money and you wouldn't do it. So I guess we can just spend our time elsewhere—you know, time and energy. I mean, I—if you don't—if there is no interest, then let us try to put it somewhere else.
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I guess that is—are you just happy as a lark, as you mentioned, Mr. Venneri? You seem to be.
Mr. VENNERI. Well, what I am—what we are looking at is to give you an answer over, you know, money required to do the job. We are starting from looking at a—where are we today? We are taking——
Mr. GORDON. No. No. I heard all that. I heard all that.
Mr. VENNERI. And then we are taking a——
Mr. GORDON. Yeah.
Mr. VENNERI [continuing]. Systems approach——
Mr. GORDON. Right. Right. Right.
Mr. VENNERI [continuing]. To things like noise emissions.
Human-Machine Interface
Mr. GORDON. Okay. Well, I will—let us just move on because I heard you say all that earlier. Would you agree, Mr. Venneri, that all the technology in the world will not make a safer, more efficient air transportation system unless people are able to operate it?
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VENNERI. People are at the heart of a lot of airplanes as well as a lot of our technology products. So the human machine interface, whether it is airplanes or other things, yes. That is—human factors is an integral part of that.
Mr. GORDON. Now, you told us—this Subcommittee last July that we need to think in terms of programs that actually are 21st century thoughts of how we integrate pilots and airplanes.
Mr. VENNERI. Uh-huh.
NASA Investment in Human Factors
Mr. GORDON. How much, approximately, are you spending this year on this critical problem of understanding how humans will function in the future aviation system? And what do you intend to spend, again, approximately, each year over the next five years? And how much of that funding is being spent in-house and how much is being used to make use of the research capabilities at our universities?
Mr. VENNERI. To get you the actual figures——
Mr. GORDON. Because I mean—just approximately.
Mr. VENNERI. The vehicle systems activity that is broken down into things that are related to concepts of what the interfaces would be, these are the displays that let the pilot see things, not in terms of steam gauges, but actual visualization of where he is and what the performance of the airplane is. That is on the—the vehicle systems research in total is on the order of $120 million. Now, a subset of that is devoted toward concepts of the display technology, the integration of humans into that. And that is probably like a factor of ten lower.
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Where we invest—and it is primarily Ames Research Center—dealing with the human aspect, both the pilot and the air traffic controller. And the—it is approximately—in terms of fundamental research—and I can get you the schools that are involved in this—but we have—it is about 40 percent out of house and 60 percent in-house.
And there is work being done with universities that are bringing new ideas of what those interface issues are, in terms of both technology and ways of multiple ways—sight, sound—not just looking at a steam gauge dial. So for the record we can give you a breakdown of who is doing it, what the work is, and some of the deliverables of those products.
NASA-University Research Collaboration
Mr. GORDON. All right. Thank you. And since your stated goal is to increase NASA's research collaborations with universities, shouldn't there be an effort to make an increase in the—this minority spending within the—you are saying you are spending maybe 40 percent with the universities—shouldn't you be trying to increase that since that is one of the goals of NASA?
Mr. VENNERI. We are actually taking a little bit—the answer is yes. And we are taking a comprehensive look just beyond areas that you are asking in this one technology arena. We are looking at a change state of working with universities, not just in terms of individual grants, but bringing them in, in a very meaningful partnership way, the way the National Science Foundation works.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And in April, we are going to be announcing a series of university research institutes that will be funded to the area of at least $3 million a year a piece with guaranteeing funding to five years and extended to 10. Which opens up a framework of working with schools as intellectual partners, not individual like 10,000, $100,000 grants. We did that by taking money out of this reprioritization in a zero-sum game. We took $18 million out of work internal to the NASA centers to structure this investment beginning with these universities in this manner I am describing.
FAA-University Research Collaboration
Mr. GORDON. Thank you. Mr. Zaidman, I understand that your budget request indicates you are spending about $27 million on human factors in the aerospace medicine in fiscal year '03, and that you have some universities involved there too. What are they trying to accomplish?
Mr. ZAIDMAN. Well, we have—you are correct. It is $27 million. That is our request. And we have—in the R&D program, we have some 23 universities that partner with us both in—primarily in human factors. We do our repetitive tasks and people are less efficient over time. We do tasks that involve certifying pilots who are subject to fatigue on long over-the-ocean flights, learning how we can best utilize the crew resource management among the crew members there to not decrease safety.
We have a center of excellence that deals in operations research, flow through people throughputs in airports, and better utilizing the airspace. There is only a limited amount of airspace and a limited amount of runway space. How—so it is an operations research type of problem. We have a center of excellence, primarily in Embry University in Florida that deals with general aviation safety issues, structural integrity, and crash worthiness. So those are some of the areas how we integrate human factors and universities in our R&D program.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GORDON. Well, let me just again say that around here it is hard enough to get what you ask for much less anything additional. And so if you think that you need additional funds to do your job and to try to make us competitive internationally, then I would say that you need to make that known. If you don't, then again, we—you know, we will just try to help those folks that would like to be helped.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Or we might even let the taxpayers keep their money. I might note today that the CBO came out today with a new finding that we are back in the black by a billion dollars. I can't—for this year and next year. Surprise. Surprise. We can fight a war and still be in the black. Boy, that is really talent, I will tell you. And with that, we will go to Mr. Forbes, our new member from Virginia, and you may proceed in your first questions in this Subcommittee.
Aeronautics Blueprint
Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for being here. The question I have for you first is I looked at the NASA aeronautics blueprint that was put out earlier this year. And one of the things it described was a vision of the technology and advances that could revolutionize aviation and regain for the U.S. its historic position as the world leader in aeronautical products and services.
But the blueprint recognizes that that vision can't be achieved by NASA alone, but only by the required efforts of NASA, DOD, DOT, the FAA, academia, and industry. What efforts are we doing to pull all of them together to make sure we realize that vision?
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VENNERI. The fact that how we produced this document was we pulled all those parties together at a series of workshops and interactions to solicit their views, look at what programs have synergy and where there is better opportunities to work. So this is really step one. We have agreements in place and we work at various coordination of working groups together to marry our programs and to look at opportunities where we can't combine resources.
The DOD, in terms of the defense research engineering activity that Ron Sega heads—we just signed a national hypersonics plan that actually—the terms that we use is harmonize technology road maps that both our dollars and our vision together—at the technology development so that the government agencies themselves come together.
In the aeronautics, we work closely with companies like Pratt and Whitney, Boeing, and, in fact, the industry, to look at addressing the issue that was brought up at this technology readiness level 6, which is really where the large costs come in. It is easy, as Congressman Gordon mentioned, doing research at universities and working in NASA research labs at low TRL, it—you can do things at low expenditures. When you take it to that next transition, that is where the expense comes in because you are buying systems that have to operate internal to an—in an engine or be put into an airplane system. There is a larger expense with that.
Now, as an example of opportunities in the past—and this is how we are looking at working in the future—I will use UTC or Pratt and Whitney—about a year or so ago, we had work on emission reduction technology. Taking, in real terms, another 30 percent of emissions coming out the back end of a jet—not there anymore. We had done things with research that involved both universities and our own people and folks within the engine community about how to prove that it works in an engine. The money to do that was not in our budget.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Pratt and Whitney sat down and worked an agreement with us where they put up 2 to 1 the resources and, in fact, took that concept of this combustor that operated and lowered these emissions in this engine and, in fact, integrated it into one of the engines and put it in an engine test cell and proved that technology is done.
So one of the activities that we are doing, and which may seem why we can't give you an answer over dollars needed, the aerospace industry—the airframes people like Boeing, the folks the engine propulsion, the material suppliers, they have made a renewed commitment to work with us as one U.S. team. And they will bring resources in with us provided we have a stable R&D environment where they can trust us to maintain the course. And they have made a commitment to work with us to deal with partnering, and that means dollar partnering, to transition it into that area of TRL 6 and higher and move things into programs.
So what we need to do differently in this next century of flight is to develop that system understanding, commitment with other government agencies, and bring this partnership together. We are at the step one of doing those things, which makes it difficult to actually say these dollars are needed. I am trying to look at a systems approach that provides this vision. And that is what we will be doing over the next year, is developing answers to those questions.
International Competition
Mr. FORBES. One last question, has the competitive position of the U.S. aerospace industry increased or decreased over the last decade in your position?
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. VENNERI. I will give you a position from a government bureaucrat. You can look at market sales and, you know, at one point Boeing was 70 percent, Airbus 30. I think technology competitiveness—it is 50/50 as you remember the charts. Technology competitive, U.S. space and aeronautics companies are world leaders. They have the—they have, I think, the best products, the best technology. What you see happening, market share is not just technology driven. Jet engines are almost a commodity market now, not a high-tech business. It is based on pricing policies between Pratt and Whitney and GE and Rolls Royce.
So when you get in—when you—if you get into a commodities business, it is hard to relate to, you know, what is happening in world events. From a technology, I think our companies and our industry are world-class, no better. But we are in a competitive business that sometimes treats high technology as a commodity product. How you beat a commodity product is you leap-frog the competition with new technology.
Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Sam. And I was very impressed with your comments about Pratt and Whitney and the other—and the commitment made by other private companies to work with you and put up their own dollars, as well as utilizing the basis that we have established with the use of Federal dollars. As you say, the foundation for these steps in the future that—but it has to be a partnership. And I am very pleased—again, engine technology and some of the investment Pratt and Whitney has made. I know they are working with the Russians, etcetera, and—to try to develop new concepts, new engines. And we should be encouraging that—and it sounds like NASA is doing its job there, but so is the private sector. So that is very good.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And when you talk about competitiveness, we have got a member of this Committee who is focused on this and has zeroed in on the importance of American competitiveness in this industry. And Mr. Larson has been aggressive on this issue. And I think today we are going to—Mr. Larson, you feel free to go on and use some extra time and develop the points that you want to make.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the indulgence of the Committee. And, first, if I might, I believe I said earlier, but I have a brief statement that I, with unanimous consent of the Chair, and a statement also from the Aviation Coalition, a group of professional societies that shares my concern about the competition, be instituted as part of this record.(see footnote 19)
Chairman ROHRABACHER. That will be made part of the record. So ordered without objection.
NASA Investment in Aeronautics Research and Development
Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panelists again. And I find the questioning enlightening. And I want to go back to a line of questioning that Mr. Gordon was pursuing. And, Sam, while I am certainly appreciating the work that is being done in collaboration with companies like Pratt and Whitney, it seems like the private sector is pulling their fair share. It is the governmental sector that is not. It is the governmental sector that remains flat.
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is the governmental sector, even when we look at this grand blueprint, which I think everybody acknowledges is the right way to go, the right kind of vision, which, yet, when you peel away the veneer, where is the funding? Now, where is the money to go forward? Where is the robust R&D that we anticipate will allow us to be in the position to make the leap frog that you talked about, in terms of technology?
When we look at the budget, what we see, in reality, is actually about a $58 million cut in the area of R&D as it relates to aeronautics. And I think in order for the blueprint to be more than a temporary stop gap or feel good about a vision that may be developed down the future, that there has got to be more of a sense of urgency about where we are in this battle, especially with our European counterparts.
I was struck by your comments that this is now considered a commodity, meaning aircraft engines, as opposed to the kind of cutting-edge technology that, I think, as Dana said earlier, that Dan Goldin would speak about when he came before this Committee. Is it the intent—and I think Mr. Gordon was headed down this path, as well—for NASA to argue for more robust funding instead of what we see flat over five years and, in our estimation, a cut of $58 million?
Mr. VENNERI. The short answer is, internal to the agency, I assure you I will be doing my best to argue my position and to develop a strategy with the Administration that we can take to the Congress over the pressing needs and prioritizations based on systems analysis that we do, the quantifying of what benefits from a systems implication, and to take that forward.
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we are doing with the budget realities that I am in currently now, though, is looking at shifting dollars against a prioritization process that we have made clear with industry and our government partners. We are also looking internal to NASA—since we do operate an infrastructure, I am looking at taking savings within the institution itself and translating that into investments in technology and looking at closing facilities, shifting a balance of workforce.
So just like a company looks at strategic realignment, this is not about downsizing NASA centers, but this is about aligning our investments to make sure that we have the right size institutional structure, in terms of doing the right program. So we are being very aggressive on two fronts.
And we will keep this Subcommittee and Congress informed as to progress and actions we will be taking. You will be hearing a series of initiatives over this summer that we are taking to strive to make sure the right investment portfolio is there, and then to describe with clarity what we can do with this investment and then, by inference, what will not be done.
Budget Versus Blueprint
Mr. LARSON. Notwithstanding your advocacy—and the goal here is not to shoot the messenger—with regard to the current budget proposals, but in listening and looking at the graphic display that Rich Golaszewski put forward, Mr. Golaszewski, can NASA meet these goals of this blueprint given the current budget allocations?
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GOLASZEWSKI. I think you have to separate out political reality and ideology from investing in technology. I can't speak to the former as to what Administration policy will be or what the Congress will do. But you have to think of technology as an investment, not only as a budget entry. And I think looking at the prospective benefits—what are we going to get if we invest in this area? What is going to be—what is going to happen to the country? What is it going to do for our industry or its position in world markets is the way you have to look at the problem.
Mr. LARSON. Forgetting ideology, forgetting politics—just looking straight forward at this budget, as it relates to R&D in aeronautics, is this a robust enough budget to allow us the leapfrog technology that we need to compete with our foreign competitors?
Mr. GOLASZEWSKI. It is my personal opinion that we could do well for the country by investing more in air traffic management and in the environmental arena, in making our products more competitive in world markets, I think. You know, we don't set the playing field internationally. The rules of the game are what people are willing to do out there. In some sense, we, as a country, have to react to the environment.
International Competition
Mr. LARSON. But if what Mr. Venneri is saying is true, if the Europeans now view aerospace industry and aeronautics as a commodity—and one that they have a plan that they project by the year 2020, that they are going to capture market share, based on a weakness in our own system. That weakness being that if we don't get the kind of government cooperation, meaning when you look at the European system and they get direct/indirect, and in the case of Rolls Royce, direct/indirect and indirect from the United States, how do we compete in this commodities area if the government isn't more robust in the R&D area on behalf of our companies here?
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GOLASZEWSKI. Well, I think if we fail to invest in R&D, then we will reap the harvest of that failure. We will not have as large a share of the market as we could.
Mr. LARSON. Mr. Swain, how is Boeing going to continue to be able to compete given that?
Mr. SWAIN. Well, we are certainly making serious investments ourselves. In R&D, we invest over a billion and a half dollars annually, though most of that is in product development. About & of that I would call technology, betting on our future. We do count on NASA, DOD, FAA, to do leading-edge research, what I call the seed corn of the future. Some of the best research we do as partners because we can add our talents and we can add a path of transitioning that technology into industry.
Our products today are based on, I think, two decades or more of significant research this government has made in aerospace. I am personally not worried about competing head to head for the next decade, but I am worried beyond that. Research has a significant lead time. So, as I said in my testimony, I am concerned about the trend. I know the vector is wrong. I am not sure exactly what the slope has to be. But I do know enough that the current slope is wrong.
Research and Development Portfolio—Near-Term Versus Long-Term
Mr. LARSON. Well, in your testimony, Dr. Cassidy, you point out as well that the proper focus needs to be on complete—a complete technology plan that balances seamless development of near-term and next generation technologies. Would you please elaborate on what you think the appropriate balance is using perhaps engine R&D as an example? And if, in doing so, if you would also tell the Committee what you believe is the appropriate R&D role for government? And, lastly, as part of that question, and it is kind of long, and I apologize—but what do you say to those who say by proposing this kind of R&D research for companies that this is a form of corporate welfare?
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. CASSIDY. Do you have any easy questions for me? John, I think I am going to start—try to respond to that three-part question by picking up on some of the other questions. I may be slightly inaccurate here in general terms, but I am not uncertain. Unless collectively we spend five times as much as is currently planned, we will not be competitive. We can argue about when that is going to happen and—10 years—it might be shorter than that. Where do I come to that conclusion?
The Europeans also have a vision. It is called Vision 2020. They are going to spend 100 billion euros over the next 20 years. Let us do some arithmetic. Let us take 500 million—that is half a billion—times 20 is 10 billion. I will give you a factor of—but I might be wrong there—5 times 10 is 50 and 10 times is 100. So it is this basis that I would say we are about 5× off where we need to be in order to go back to the question that Mr. Gordon asked in his fundamental—or his opening remarks.
What are the consequences? I think we will fail to compete over time. And, in fact, the overall progress of civil aviation will, in fact, I think, be retarded without the proper technological base.
So what should we do about that? I'll try to speak to your question. I think I see a rebalancing and maybe a 2× increase and a return to a prior policy of NASA and other government agencies to work with industry on these so-called four—technology readiness levels 4 through 6 activities. Mr. Venneri pointed out a very successful one that occurred with Pratt and Whitney.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Corporate Welfare
I don't think it is corporate welfare. Because, in some sense, welfare is essentially, in some definition, giving something to someone who doesn't have anything and is unable to sustain themselves on their own. As you have correctly pointed out, in my own company I can speak specific terms—our R&D for aerospace has been maintained, and on some programs, increased over the past decade. The same cannot be said for government. And I think we ought to look at this, as was prior discussed, as an investment—an investment in the future. And I think the vision that has been laid out by NASA and others is exactly the right template. But I think we have to be more aggressive and focused.
Let me quote you something from the Europeans who put the program together. ''Gradual realization of our ambitious vision must be facilitated by an increase in public funding.'' Listen to this. ''Time for the union—and that is the European Union—and its member states to join aeronautics stakeholders in a new partnership dedicated to capturing the vision.'' There are two great prizes. Global leadership in the marketplace and a world-class air transport system for Europe. I think that is what is at stake here.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Dr. Cassidy. You have indulged me greatly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Larson. And I think that you have managed to dig out some gems of wisdom in your interrogation there, and we appreciate that very much. And we now have Roscoe Bartlett, who, as I say, is our resident scientist and Ph.D. And—but also, I might add, one of the most fiscally responsible members of the House of Representatives. So he has not only got the technical knowledge, but he has a lot of discipline when it comes to the pocketbook. So, Roscoe, you may proceed.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. I try to spend your money as carefully as I spend mine. I am intrigued by the solar airplane. And wonder, because of its potential for surveillance, for many surveillance applications, satellites that are pretty high and travel pretty fast. And the potential for surveillance from your airplane is really very, very intriguing. How slowly can you fly without losing altitude up there near 100,000 feet?
Mr. VENNERI. The program that we demonstrated to get up above, say, 60,000, it is an interesting phenomena. It is—as you go up in the atmosphere, it is not just—going to the next step is not that easy to do. So it is a nonlinear function of climbing out and sustaining flight. There is a power balance, and you can't stay up there alone with solar power alone. And the batteries themselves become too heavy to sustain moving up there. So——
Mr. BARTLETT. At what altitude could you maintain 24-hour flight with batteries, storing the energy for night flight?
Mr. VENNERI. If—it falls down more in the 60 to 70,000, but, quite frankly, we are looking at that not viable because the batteries detract from payload. So what you want is the lightest object up there with the maximum payload.
And so our—for the—our vision would be a system that has a closed-loop fuel cell system that, in effect, uses both sunlight and fuel cell technology in order to have a sustainable, extreme-altitude, extreme-duration system, which opens up communications, surveillance, disaster mitigation. And there are commercial people that have approached both us and Aeroenvironment, the company that we are working with, as potential business plans.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, September 11 put a lot of that on hold, as not just disrupting service, but there has been a lot of fallout since that attack. And this is one area that people are now taking a step back. So we are pushing the technology frontier to actually look at the idea of long duration, extreme observation—almost unlimited duration if you get to this technology frontier.
Airport Security
Mr. BARTLETT. This is really very exciting and very intriguing. I have a philosophical question for you. I am sure you have all watched a professional auto race. And the car may run into the wall at 150 miles an hour. It goes end over end. The wheels fly off. It bursts into flames and they put the fire out. And unless the seat belt has come loose or something, almost invariably the driver crawls out safe and sound. Now, there is almost no accident that we have with our automobiles that comes really close to the forces involved in that crash. So it is pretty obvious that if we equipped all of our cars with a steel crash cage, and if you had to put on a flame suit and a crash helmet and strap yourself in, there would be almost no fatalities on our roads.
But we have about 42,000 fatalities on our roads, and that is because through the hundred years of development of the automobile, our society has made a, perhaps, unconscious decision that the 42,000 a year is a reasonable price to pay for the convenience of jumping in the car and running around the corner.
I cite this as a context for asking a question about security and, particularly, safety at our airports, maybe more focused on security. There is an old farm saying that I am not sure I would want to do that because the juice ain't worth the squeezing. And I am wondering at what point our increased focus on security and so forth will cost us more in terms of the kind of things that we could avoid with fitting every one of our cars, like the racing car, but have chosen not to do that. How do we make a rational decision as to society when enough is enough?
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ZAIDMAN. That is a very good and very philosophical question and I am not sure I can answer it that succinctly. But there—we have—we live in an open society and we want to keep our airways and our airports as secure as possible, yet as open as possible. And frankly there was a tradeoff. And there is a tradeoff compared to the threat.
Unfortunately, in this point in time, the threat, as we all unfortunately know all too well, that the threat is extremely high, which requires, in my view, extraordinary measures that may, in time, impinge on people's desired freedoms and flexibilities.
The way we have chosen to do this in FAA and DOT now is through a combination of technology insertion, which, you know, admittedly is answering a very nontechnological problem, using airplanes for weapons, in this case. We have much work to do in not only developing the technology, but in developing our understanding of how we can more effectively work at the people level.
The reason I am saying all of this is that I believe that we will solve this issue in terms of protecting the security of the flying public to a very practical and, yet, secure level. The threat is very real and we need to do whatever needs to be done to protect the public. We can't—we are not like Israel. We have a totally different system in Israel than we have here. The system is very diverse. We are—our economy is fundamentally intertwined with our aviation industry.
To have a system that is viewed or perceived in reality or in fact as less secure than we can make it, will not only have human casualty potential, God forbid, but it will also have a very direct and substantial input on the economy of our country. And I believe that the terrorist acts was much against the government as it was against the private sector economy of our country. So we—in my view, we need to do whatever it takes to reasonably secure our airports as a system in the best possible manner. I know that is fully not addressing your answer, Dr. Bartlett.
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BARTLETT. If we were to use that philosophy in addressing our auto deaths to do whatever we could, obviously we could reduce our auto deaths to almost zero. If every one of our cars was equipped like those racing cars, with a steel crash cage, and you put on a flame suit and a crash helmet and strapped yourself in, we would have almost no automobile deaths. But we have decided not to do everything we can to reduce automobile deaths, because we have made the judgment that the 42,000 deaths—and, by the way, hundreds of thousands life-altering injuries—are a reasonable price to pay for the convenience of jumping in the car and going around the corner.
We are now facing a similar kind of a decision relative to air travel. But we are not applying the same kind of rationale to it that we have grown to accept in the auto industry. And my question is, how do we decide in society when enough is enough? Mr. Chairman, I know we can't answer this question today——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. I——
Mr. BARTLETT [continuing]. But our economy is really affected by what we are doing now——
Chairman ROHRABACHER. And I think what——
Mr. BARTLETT [continuing]. And going to be more affected in the——
Page 125 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. We—Roscoe, we are going to ponder that question, as Bart Gordon has suggested. We are going to ponder that question as I try to figure out the technological things that have been said. We will also ponder the philosophical things that have been said here today. And the one—when we get into technology and philosophy, we have with us David Wu, who is a—on human rights, but human rights and technology. So here he is, and, David, you may proceed.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to make more of a comment than anything else and invite you all to respond to the extent that you would like to. Like many of my colleagues, we fly on a—pretty much on a twice weekly basis. I have maintained my enthusiasm for flying. Still always ask for the window seat and so on. But I do have—and having said that, I do have the good fortune of living in two places that enjoy the presence of airplanes. My home in Portland, Oregon is under the flight path for Portland International Airport. And as so many places in Washington, D.C., the place where I hang my hat here in Washington, you know, we can enjoy the sounds of National Airport quite clearly whenever the airplanes are flying.
And I—from that, I would like to leap to an experience I had about a dozen years ago. In the private sector, we represented a number of institutions working on voice recognition technology. And in the mid to late '80's, I was traveling in Japan and I stopped in at a research center and they demonstrated a house with that you could order the lights on, the curtains closed, and so on, and so forth, by saying it. And you just tell the house to do this. And when I witnessed this, I thought, this is really terrific. You know, here is the beginnings of workable voice recognition technology. The problem is when we get around to it, I am going to have to learn Japanese in order to use it.
Page 126 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And to bring it back around to what I was addressing before, some day, when we have the next generation of airplanes and airplane engines, the airplanes that I would like to be flying in and the engines that I would like to not be hearing, I would very much like to be American or made in North America.
And I—with apologies in advance to any folks representing Airbus in the audience, you know, when I go to the airport at the beginning of the week, it is with a heavy heart if I see an A–319 or A–320. I think about the laminates and the composites. I think about the software modules. Mr. Swain, I would much rather see one of your products parked at the gate. But the airlines make that decision and I don't.
And I would very much like to see to it that you all make the private sector investments so that I will continue to have a domestic product choice in that we, on this side, make sure that we make the public sector R&D investments so that we will continue to have a GE, Pratt and Whitney to the extent that Rolls Royce makes their product in the United States an American option and an airframe option. And I—you might or might not agree with us, Mr. Swain, but once upon a time there was also a Douglas and Lockheed airframe option. But, you know, now we are hanging our hat on you.
So I want to make sure we make the public and private sector investments to keep a viable airframe and engine and avionics industry in the United States. We have had this huge technology for so long. We have taken it for granted. And with that, I—that is the general comment. If any of you would like to respond, I invite you to, but you certainly don't have to.
Page 127 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SWAIN. I agree.
Chairman ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much. We have Mr. Weiner with us from New York and I remember very well when you first joined the Committee that how involved you were on the noise issue, as well as the pollution issue. And I imagine that maybe it might be which one I am talking about today because earlier on, we were discussing and that is when came up in the testimony—is those were two areas that people would like to see researched. But don't let me put words in your mouth. Go right ahead.
Airport Noise
Mr. WEINER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to give you a sense, when Mr. Wu looks at a plane, he sees software modules and laminates. I just want to know is it peanuts today or the little pretzels. I don't have nearly that sophisticated a view of it. But I can tell you it is not with any level of pleasure that I look at a plane if you come from a district that borders Kennedy Airport on one side and La Guardia Airport on the other. You spend much of your time discussing with constituents why it is that in this age of technology there has been a standstill reached on the level to which the aircraft engines reduce their noise.
We had a very successful experiment, which many of the airlines opposed. I don't know where the aircraft engine manufacturers were—where we said in 1990—Congress said, we want there to be a 50 percent reduction in the noise emanating from aircraft. We are going to call it stage 3 compliance and we can give you 10 years to do it.
Page 128 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The airlines huffed and they puffed. They said we can't do it. It is unreasonable. It is unfair. And it has been implemented. Almost 100 percent by the end of 1999, I think every aircraft in the sky that was eligible under the—that was required to have a stage 3 compliant engine had done so.
Well, what are you shooting for now? Nothing. There is no stage 4 goal post that is out there. There is not a requirement on the industry. There is no incentive right now on someone who is ordering an aircraft or someone who is building an aircraft, ordering an engine, to say, I want this sucker to be real quiet.
The FAA, on the other hand, is going to spend about $300 million this year on noise abatement—noise abatement of elementary schools, noise abatement of hospitals. I think we have allowed one pressure to be let off. And while we all support more government R&D in this area—and I was the author of an amendment that passed on the Floor to increase the amount of R&D done by NASA—we have taken the pressure off the private sector. And I believe the solution is that we should, today, say, 10 years from now we should once again reduce aircraft engine noise by 50 percent and make it the law. Stage 4 engines should be the law.
It is important that someone who is making a decision on the—to—on purchasing, have some incentive to pursue quieter aircraft engines. Now, NASA, for all of its good words spoken about this, doesn't have the money in their budget to do it. That has been discussed here today. We have a 5-year funding plan for NASA that would provide $20 million for the next three years and 0 for fiscal year '06 and '07. I guess that is going to be because you have announced you are going to come up, you are going to accomplish your goal by the year 2007 on to develop an aircraft that is twice as quiet as today's. Well, perhaps you will, perhaps you will do it with that level of funding. Just to put in context, that is $20 million a year. The FAA is going to spend $300 million a year in noise abatement.
Page 129 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Stage Four
So let me begin by asking Mr. Swain from the Boeing Company, if we say in 10 years provide aircraft for the carriers, sell them aircraft that comply with stage 4 requirements, let us make them 50 percent reduction in aircraft noise, do your folks, with your expertise you now have, or with your expectation of the arc of information, do you think you will be able to comply with that and sell U.S. Airways 20 planes, you know, however often they order planes from you guys to be in compliant with that stage 4 requirement?
Mr. SWAIN. Let me give at least a partial answer. We at Boeing and our partners that manufacture engines have a number of ideas on how to reduce the noise. The challenge to take ideas to reality is a technology development and uncertainty around what it is really going to cost. So I have no idea what it would cost. If——
Mr. WEINER. Well, but the—if I can just interrupt you. But under my dynamic, the cost of not doing it would be 100 percent after 10 years. If you are still at a stage 3 aircraft, you are not going to be able to sell them.
Mr. SWAIN. Well, I am talking about the cost of the passengers. It is the cost of the passengers that really affect this industry overall. That is what affects the growth of the industry, what we can sell products for, whether it is a good business or not.
Mr. WEINER. Got you.
Page 130 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SWAIN. So the issue that NASA—a good role for NASA to help and all of us need to help—is to take ideas, experiment with them, engineer them to the level that I could tell you that this is going to cost $2 million in airplanes, therefore so much at ticket price or five million——
Mr. WEINER. Got you. Mr.——
Mr. SWAIN [continuing]. I just don't know.
Mr. WEINER. My light is on yellow. Let me ask you this. We now have 10 years of experience where your predecessor sat in the same seat and said the same thing. Ten years we have now put it—we have gone from stage 2 to stage 3. How much has it increased ticket price per passenger—now we have 100 percent hindsight—over that 10 years that you can attribute to noise reduction?
Mr. SWAIN. Over that 10 years, there were other technologies incorporated, so the ticket price, quite frankly, has come down over that period.
Mr. WEINER. No. I am saying—but I asked a different question. I said, how much of the increase in cost can you attribute to noise reduction?
Mr. SWAIN. I don't know the answer to that. I will try to get them submitted for the record.
Mr. WEINER. Well, I would appreciate that. And I would speculate, Mr. Chairman, that this is like a lot of safety requirements we put on products. One of the things that the industry is not going to be a good—you know, a good place to look for some of this information. We can now look at experience and find out that what we did in this Congress, by requiring the industry to take certain steps because they made fiscal sense and they made environmental sense, at the end of the day, all the huffing and puffing, if you force them to do it, the great minds that we have sitting in front of us with literally a hundred-some years of experience with aeronautic design, they will come up with a quieter aircraft engine. I have complete confidence in it. But if we don't force them to—if we don't put their—if we don't put some kind of goal in the law, then they probably won't.
Page 131 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. I appreciate that observation. Let me also note, if we work with NASA and the FAA to make sure that the research is available so that the airlines can comply with regulatory demands, it really sort of closes the loop so that it makes it not just a demanding government, but also a government that is involved with a partnership in finding solutions.
And—but we do appreciate the fact that demands have to be made and aggressively. So—before our industry will act in some cases. So thank you for your aggressive demands today, and I am sure that your voice has been heard. I appreciate all the voices today that have been heard and the witnesses who have been with us.
Let me note that this is a bipartisan Subcommittee and this is a bipartisan issue. We are very proud of the work that our folks at NASA and FAA are doing. I would hope that in the future and our—Mr. Gordon, our Ranking Member, mentioned this as well—if industry has some specifics that they would like to tell us, as Members of Congress, that they would like to see the FAA and NASA doing that they are not, that you would come to us either individually or you would testify here before us and say, look, we would really—we need this much money pumped into this research area because it will help us meet these demands that were made for, you know, less noise and less air pollution. And we need that type of guidance because, except for Roscoe Bartlett, we are not scientists here.
And with that said, we—but what we are, are custodians of the people's money. And we try to be—try to make sure that money is being used as wisely as possible. I don't think general—just general increases in the amount of money that is for research is necessarily all that helpful. We need to have direction on how that research will be spent and specifically what technologies we should zero in on to make sure we are achieving that end.
Page 132 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, with that said, again, thank you all very much for your testimony. And I am supposed to say something right at the end here. Here are the magic words—I would like again to thank the witnesses. Okay. Please be advised that the Subcommittee Members may have additional information that they will request for the record. And I would ask other Members who are going to do so, to submit written questions and to do so within one week of the date of this hearing. And with that said, this concludes our hearing, and we are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Sam L. Venneri, Associate Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to written questions submitted by Chairman Rohrabacher resulting from the March 7, 2002, hearing.
Q1. Your written statement emphasized the value of a strong working relationship between NASA and FAA. Please give specific examples of meaningful products or programs that have resulted from this collaboration. What programs are NASA and FAA currently collaborating on? Please provide funding levels, sources of funding, goals, deliverables, and completion dates.
Page 133 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A1. There are four primary NASA–FAA interagency goals: Aviation System Efficiency (Air Traffic), Aviation Safety, Environment (Noise and Emissions), and Security. NASA and FAA collaborate at the working level through the use of work groups and integrated teams.
Aviation system efficiency research (conducted by NASA in the Airspace Systems Program) is coordinated through an Interagency Air Traffic Management Integrated Product Team. Meaningful products/programs include Surface Movement Advisor, Traffic Management Advisor, Passive Final Approach Tool, Advanced General Aviation Transportation Experiments, and Traffic Flow Automation System. NASA's FY 2003 budget request for the Airspace Systems Program is $459 million for FY 2003–FY 2007. This includes $170 million in the Advanced Air Transportation Technology (AATT) and the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) projects that will conclude in FY 2004–2005. High-level deliverables (by 6/06) from these and other Airspace Systems projects include decision support tools such as:
Surface Management System,
Multi-Center Traffic Management Advisor, and
Virtual Airspace Modeling and Simulation tools Airspace Systems also includes $130 million in placeholder funding in FY 2005–2007 for a Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGAT) project that will be defined based on the deliverables from the AATT and SATS projects.
Aviation safety research (conducted by NASA in the Aviation Safety Program) is coordinated through the FAA/NASA Safety Joint Working Group. Meaningful products/programs include Aviation System Monitoring and Modeling, System-Wide Accident Prevention, Single Aircraft Accident Prevention, Synthetic Vision, Weather Accident Prevention, and Accident Mitigation. NASA's FY 2003 budget request for the Aviation Safety Program is $526 million for FY 2003–FY 2007. This includes $213 million for the Vehicle Safety Technologies and System Safety Technologies projects that will conclude in FY 2005. High-level deliverables (by June 2005) from these and other Aviation Safety projects include demonstration and delivery of:
Page 134 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Operational graphical weather products,
Advanced warning of severe turbulence,
Certifiable synthetic vision technologies,
Certifiable precision approach and landing technologies, and
Advanced structures, materials, and system designs Aviation Safety also includes $200 million in placeholder funding in FY 2006–2007 for Future Aviation Safety Technologies that will be defined based on the deliverables from the Vehicle Safety and System Safety Technologies projects.
Projects focused on improving the environmental compatibility of aircraft include the Ultra Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) and the Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) projects. Both UEET and QAT are part of NASA's Vehicle Systems program and are coordinated with the FAA's Environment and Energy Office. Products include definition of baseline system configurations and preliminary assessment of revolutionary candidate technologies, and definition of advanced propulsion options incorporating low emissions combustor, high temperature materials and highly loaded turbomachinery candidate technologies NASA's FY 2003 request for these projects is $330 million for FY 2003–FY 2006. QAT is planned to conclude in FY 2005 and UEET is planned to conclude in FY 2006. High-level deliverables (by 12/05) from the QAT and UEET projected include technologies to:
Page 135 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Reduce oxides of nitrogen emissions by 70 percent at landing and take-off conditions,
Reduce overall fuel burn by fifteen percent for large subsonic transport,
Reduce overall fuel burn by eight percent for high speed and/or small subsonic aircraft; and
Demonstration of component technologies necessary to achieve 5 dB aircraft system noise reduction in simplified experiments
Projects focused on improving aviation security are being developed as an extension of NASA's Aviation Safety Program through coordination with the FAA and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Specific projects are in the formulation stages, and high-level deliverables have yet to be determined.
Q2. The President's budget states that ''NASA conducts the majority of its aeronautics research itself, rather than opening up competition that could take advantage of skills and innovation in the private sector and academia. It also states, ''NASA will seek to reduce institutional costs at its field centers so more funds can be invested in technology research.''
How much do you think you can reduce institutional costs?
What activities are you considering as candidates for reduction? Will this involve the closing of major facilities or reductions in the government or contractor workforce?
Page 136 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What is the timeline for when these decisions will be made?
A2. NASA has consistently recognized the need to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the research that is conducted at its field centers. Many of the major initiatives undertaken by the Agency during the past decade, including the Zero Base Review, have helped NASA maximize the benefits of its research investment by identifying ways to achieve institutional efficiencies while continuing to support critical research efforts.
Most recently, NASA's Strategic Resources Review has identified several areas where additional ''institutional'' efficiencies may be realized. For example, efforts are underway to assess the feasibility of increased partnerships with the university community across a range of research support activities, including the provision of library and archival services. In addition, the Agency's response to the competitive sourcing element of the President's Management Agenda may include proposals to rebalance the Agency's investment in institutional services by seeking efficiencies through public-private or private-private competitions.
Each of the four research centers also continues to search for additional mechanisms for ensuring that NASA maximizes the use of its research dollars. The Langley Research Center, for example, recently announced its intention to mothball the 16–Foot Transonic Wind Tunnel, a major Agency facility, at the end of FY 2004. Research currently conducted in this facility would be moved to other wind tunnels at Langley and elsewhere, helping to optimize the overall utilization of NASA's facility portfolio. More broadly, a Congressionally mandated study of all of NASA's aeronautics test and evaluation facilities is expected to identify additional cost savings, facility consolidations, and facility closures. Preliminary findings from this study are expected in September, 2002; the final report is due by May, 2003.
Page 137 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q3. The FAA–NASA partnership has been described as complementary, with NASA taking on the long-term, high-risk challenges and FAA tackling the near-term technology hurdles. As we begin to look for long-term solutions to challenges confronting our air traffic control system, who has the lead authority for defining the architecture of a future ATC system?
How does the government coordinate its research with industry, taking into account new industry concepts? FAA has the Operational Evolution Plan that over the next ten years will—at best—produce enough new capacity in the Air Traffic Control system to keep pace with growth. What happens after that, and who is in charge of developing the follow-on system?
A3. The FAA has the lead for defining the architecture of the NAS, both present and future.
Government coordinates research with industry in numerous ways. Formal involvement includes establishing government/industry workshops and partnerships, as well as through the inclusion of industry partners in advisory committees (such as NASA's Aerospace Technology Advisory Committee (ATAC) and FAA's Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) ). Additionally, NASA is a member of the industry-government Commercial Aviation Safety Team (CAST).
The Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) identifies the FAA's plan for the next 10 years. The FAA is responsible for updating this document such that there is always a 10-year rolling plan. NASA is responsible for pursuing mid- to long-term research and technology that supports the OEP and long-term research that looks beyond the current OEP horizon.
Page 138 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Responses to written questions submitted by Congressman Gordon resulting from the March 7, 2002, hearing.
Q1a. [For Mr. Venneri] In your March 7th testimony, you stated that NASA's research related to the human aspect of aviation—including both pilot and air traffic controller—is conducted ''about 40 percent out-of-house and 60 percent in-house.''
Please provide the annual amount of funding allocated to this area of research for FY 2000 thru FY 2007.
A1a. The funding related to the human aspect of aviation is on the order of $10 million to $10.5 million per year for FY 2000 thru FY 2007. The breakdown for FY 2002 is $10.06 million, of which $3.12 million (or 31 percent) is devoted to out-of-house contracts and grants.
Q1b. Please provide the necessary documentation to substantiate the 40–60 split between out-of-house and in-house research funding.
A1b. Of the $3.12 million, 89 percent goes to fund approximately 60 grants to universities ($2.76 million), and 11 percent goes to fund approximately 20 contracts to industry ($0.36 million).
Responses to written questions submitted by Congressman Miller resulting from the March 7, 2002, hearing.
Page 139 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q1. The general aviation community is generally supportive of the Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) research and development program. Of concern to the general aviation community is how NASA will acknowledge and plan for the many emerging capabilities that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the commercial industry intend to introduce in the next five years (before SATS is complete). In light of this concern, NASA should ensure that their research dovetails with these emerging capabilities such as random route (non airway) navigation and cockpit display technologies that enable a cockpit moving map, terrain, air/air traffic, graphical weather, surface moving maps and air traffic control data link capabilities.
In order to maximize the success of the ensuing transition, would NASA be willing to conduct research and development that leads to the manufacture of low-cost avionics, affordable for the average general aviation aircraft owner? Specifically, NASA could fund the necessary work to identify technologies and revolutionize concepts to facilitate the development, certification and sale of these displays at approximately one-half the current cost. This single R&D effort stands to benefit general aviation operations more in the future than any of the currently identified NASA programs.
A1. NASA's longer-term general aviation technology strategy has been based on a roadmap developed with industry participation during the 1990's. This roadmap laid out a phased development plan over 25 years, between the mid 1990's and the early 2020's.
The initial phase (1994–2001) established the requirements for the AGATE program, focused on technologies for ease-of-use, safety, affordability, and utility of small aircraft manufactured for transportation missions. Many of these technologies have already addressed various small aircraft instrumentation issues. Partly as a result of investments under AGATE, the cost of avionics has already taken a new and fundamental turn in economic behavior. For the first time in the avionics industry's history, the economies of scale from the commercial, off-the-shelf (COTS) industrial sector are bringing lower costs into avionics. This process has just taken hold in industrial applications within the past year. Underlying this change were efforts in the AGATE program (under the FAA-led AIR AGATE Team) to deliver the FAA Advisory Circulars (23.1309 and 23.1311) that provide certification guidance for the new generation of COTS-based avionics and displays.
Page 140 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The second phase (2001–2005) established the requirements for the current Small Aircraft Transportation System (SATS) program, which focus on new operating capabilities (based on part on the flight systems technologies developed in AGATE). These operational capabilities, aimed at enabling wider use of small airports and small aircraft, could help alleviate congestion in the Nation's major hub-and-spoke air system and pave the way to new airspace management systems. Many of the technologies (e.g., cockpit air traffic data control link capabilities) listed in the question are being addressed through this effort. However, other technologies are also needed to help ensure continued growth in small aircraft utilization. Thus, the currently planned portfolio of SATS investments remains more important than an investment in a single area, such as technologies to reduce instrumentation costs, both in terms of supporting continued growth in small aircraft utilization and in terms of pathfinder technologies to improve the Nation's overall air system.
The current NASA technology strategy is coordinated with the emerging changes planned in the National Airspace System (NAS) architecture, including the direct navigation, and cockpit display technologies for maps, terrain, air traffic, weather, and air traffic services. This coordination is managed through NASA–FAA Memoranda of Understanding and through the advisory functions for both agencies (parallel NASA Aerospace Technology Advisory Committee and the FAA Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee subcommittees focused on General Aviation and SATS strategies).
Following the conclusion of the SATS program in 2005, if NASA does future work in small aircraft, (possible third phase), it would likely refocus attention on vehicle technologies for advanced small transportation aircraft, their utility, as well as their affordability. The next significant advancement in cockpit technologies with the potential to revolutionize general aviation operations appears to be in a leap forward in the integration of flight controls with intuitive display systems. This is an area in which NASA research could play an important role, but such additional investments will be considered only after the success of SATS investments can be assessed.
Page 141 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
NASA's technology strategy has the most to offer the Nation through continued focus on coordinated vehicle and airspace technology strategies that bring new transportation utility for economically equitable, on-demand, widely distributed, point-to-point air mobility.
Responses to written questions submitted by Congressman Weiner resulting from the March 7, 2002, hearing.
Q1. [For Mr. Venneri and Mr. Zaidman] We spend far more on dealing with the effects of noise than dealing with the root causes: FAA alone spends $300 million annually for noise abatement or mitigation (sound proofing, etc.), but proposes spending only $4.1 million on developing community noise standards in 2003 and NASA proposes spending about $20 million in 2003 developing quieter engines. Can you explain how the Administration determined the funding levels for research and development into quieter and cleaner engines?
A1. Within the aeronautics budget, the funding levels for aviation research and technology (R&T) support research to address three key public goods issues that could constrain future growth in the Nation's air system: aviation safety, air system capacity, and aircraft environmental compatibility. NASA invests in new technologies that can reduce the externalities associated with each of these public goods issues. Each of these externalities must be addressed to ensure continued growth of the Nation's air system.
Under environmental compatibility, NASA's invests in research to address aircraft emissions, including carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, and aircraft noise. The key to research aimed at successfully reducing aircraft noise is ensuring that the products of this research find their way into the air fleet and that they address key aircraft noise regulations. The President's FY 2003 Budget calls for NASA to ''strengthen its ties with the FAA'' to do just that, and NASA is seeking to improve its coordination of its environmental compatibility efforts with the FAA's Environment and Energy Office.
Page 142 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q2. [For Mr. Venneri] In NASA's budget book, NASA pledges to reduce perceived noise from commercial aircraft by a factor of two by 2007 (10 decibels quieter). That is a commendable goal, given the environmental benefits of quieter aircraft and the likelihood that the global marketplace will demand quieter planes in the future. Yet NASA's five year funding plan calls for flat funding of air noise research ($20 million) for the next three years, and zero funding in FY 2006 and FY 2007. NASA has confirmed to the Committee staff that that funding profile is not adequate to achieve the stated milestone. Has NASA decided to eliminate that noise goal from its program? If so, why? If not, how do you propose to meet the milestone?
A2. NASA has a two-phase plan for developing technology for quieter aircraft. The first phase, the Quiet Aircraft Technology project ($20 million in FY 2003) in the Vehicle Systems program is to develop more accurate physics-based computational models and aircraft noise reduction concepts evaluated in a laboratory environment as well as low noise operations around airports. The fundamental understanding of source noise mechanisms gained from computational, as well as experimental diagnostic investigations, will lead to the discovery and optimization of component noise reduction concepts necessary to achieve the Enterprise's 10 dB noise reduction objective. The noise reduction benefit of these concepts and the prediction models themselves will be validated in laboratory experiments. Additionally, airborne air traffic management technologies necessary to implement low noise advanced operations will be developed. The flight guidance algorithms associated with the low noise operations will be flight-verified in a low-density terminal environment, and then demonstrated in a real-time computer simulation with pilot inputs of a high-density terminal environment. The intent is to reliably and safely implement low noise operations in both high- and low-density airspace.
Page 143 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Based on the results of the first phase, the second phase of this plan is to take the most promising noise reduction concepts to greater maturity levels. Planning for this phase will not begin until late 2002/early 2003, and therefore, required funding levels are not known at this time. However, NASA's FY 2003–2007 budget request for the Vehicle Systems program includes outyear-planning wedges from which necessary resources could be drawn.
Q3a. [For Mr. Venneri] In the FY 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill passed by Congress and signed into law late last year, Congress provided an additional $14 million to FAA for noise R&D than the President requested. FAA acknowledged in their testimony that this amount would be transferred to NASA, but in your testimony you did not clarify whether that $14 million is included in NASA's $20 million air noise budget or whether it is separate.
Has the $14 million been transferred to NASA? If so, when? If not, why not?
A3a. NASA and the FAA are still finalizing an interagency agreement on noise R&D, which will include the transfer of $14 million to NASA.
Q3b. Is NASA committed to spending $34 million in FY 2002 on noise R&D or $20 million?
A3b. With the transfer from FAA, NASA will spend $34 million on noise R&D in FY 2002.
Page 144 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q3c. How will the $14 million transferred from FAA be used by NASA?
A3c. The agreement between the FAA and NASA is to use the $14 million as follows:
Engine system noise reduction: $9.8 million (70 percent). Technology development for concepts for fan source noise reduction and jet noise reduction and assessment of the contribution of modern turbo-fan core noise to community noise impact.
Airframe system noise reduction: $2.9 million (21 percent). Technology development for concepts for reducing the noise of landing gear and airframe/engine noise source shielding.
Community noise impact: $1.3 million (9 percent). Development of modeling for noise source component definition and pilot/controller simulation of advanced operations.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Steven B. Zaidman, Associate Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, to questions submitted by Chairman Dana Rohrabacher
Q1. The Air Traffic Control (ATC) enterprise will spend close to $9 billion in FY03 for operations and investment. FAA will also spend another $3 billion a year on increasing airport capacity. On the R&D side, though, FAA spends less than $50 million a year (or less than b percent of total spending) for capacity and ATC technologies R&D. This level of investment is far below the ratio usually found in industry when comparing operations to research.
Page 145 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
How did FAA determine the size of its proposed research budget?
A1. Air traffic services (ATS) related R&D exists in both our Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) and Facilities and Equipment (F&E) budgets and exceeds $50 million. In FY 2002, there is approximately $142 million in F&E (including Safe Flight 21, portions of MITRE/CAASD and Free Flight R&D) and $32 million in R,E&D for ATS related R&D, for a total of $174 million.
The size of FAA's R,E&D budget request is established based on Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Department guidelines. Within those guidelines, the FAA R&D Executive Board (REB) develops the best R&D portfolio possible for supporting the FAA safety, capacity, and environmental goals. The REB consists of representatives of the FAA lines of business, who establish R&D requirements, and is chaired by the Office of Aviation Research. The size and composition of R&D's portion of the F&E budget is determined by the relative priority of R&D requirements with respect to all other F&E funding requirements.
Q2. The FAA–NASA partnership has been described as complementary, with NASA taking on the long-term, high-risk challenges and FAA tackling the near-term technology hurdles. As we begin to look for long-term solutions to challenges confronting our air traffic control system, who has the lead authority for defining the architecture of a future ATC system?
A2. FAA, working with the aviation community, including NASA, has the responsibility for defining the future NAS operational concept and air traffic control (ATC) system architecture.
Page 146 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q2a. How does the government coordinate its research with industry, taking into account new industry concepts?
A2a. Research needs are conveyed to industry through several mechanisms, such as: RTCA meetings; Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee and other advisory committees meetings; professional society meetings; government sponsored workshops; formal solicitations of interest; and other forums. FAA and NASA together or separately routinely visit industry or invite them to visit our facilities to exchange information on our R&D programs. New industry concepts are solicited through various competitive procurement approaches, such as a Broad Agency Announcement, R&D contracts and Cooperative R&D Agreements (CRDA).
Q2b. FAA has the Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) that over the next ten years will—at best—produce enough new capacity in the Air Traffic Control system to keep pace with growth. What happens after that, and who is in charge of developing the follow-on system?
A2b. The OEP is a rolling 10-year planning activity which will be updated each year for the next 10 years, and FAA will remain in charge of evolving the system. FAA will continue to collaborate with NASA and industry to develop the best practical concepts and technologies for improving the system to meet the Nation's needs.
Q3. Some European cities may soon impose highly stringent noise and emissions standards for aircraft landing at their airports. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), of which the U.S. is a member, is also working on developing worldwide uniform standards for noise and emissions. Based on these emerging standards, will our domestic manufacturers be competitive with both the ICAO standard as well as the individual standards being discussed by several European cities? Will these standards restrict the use of the Stage 3 fleet in use today?
Page 147 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A3. The new ICAO noise standard, known as Chapter 4, as well as the agreement on a ''balanced approach'' to noise management, and the continuing work at ICAO on emissions issues have put in place both environmental standards and approaches to dealing with noise and emissions that U.S. manufacturers and operators will be able to meet.
ICAO has taken two significant actions to address aircraft noise. First, on the recommendation of ICAO's environmental committee, the ICAO Council, in early 2001, adopted a new Chapter 4 noise standard, noted above. This new standard is based on current technology and will apply generally to new aircraft certifications beginning in January 2006. Working together, the U.S. government and industry (principally carriers and manufacturers) participated fully in the international process that led to the final technical definition of Chapter 4 and supported its implementation. Also, in adopting this new standard, ICAO was clear that it was not to be the basis for new operating restrictions. Second, ICAO has adopted a new approach to manage aircraft noise around airports. Facing an increase in efforts to limit the operations of certain aircraft either through restrictions imposed by airports in many regions of the world, often in arbitrary ways, or national or regional phase-outs, ICAO has endorsed a structured process of managing aircraft noise utilizing a ''balanced approach.''
Under the new international agreement, instead of banning aircraft (a phase out), or going first to operating restrictions, an airport would follow a stepped process to arrive at the most cost-effective solution. It first requires the identification of an airport's specific noise problem based on objective, measurable criteria. Next the costs and benefits of the four principal types of noise reduction measures—reduction at source, land-use management, noise abatement operational procedures and operating restrictions—must be evaluated. Lastly, based on cost-benefit analysis, the measures selected are to achieve maximum environmental benefit most cost effectively. The balanced approach provides for transparency by requiring consultation with stakeholders throughout the process. Under this approach, operating restrictions can be placed on Stage 3 aircraft (as they can under the U.S. system), if this represents the most cost-effective approach for dealing with a noise issue.
Page 148 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The European Union has recently repealed the ''hushkit regulation,'' a design-based regulation on noise which discriminated against U.S. manufacturers while not substantially addressing noise issues, and adopted a new noise management directive that its member states will now have to implement. While the new directive adopts some of the important principles of the ICAO Resolution, the United States remains concerned that it deviates in a number of ways from the letter and spirit of the ICAO resolution agreed to by the EU Member States and all ICAO members last year. The United States intends to monitor closely the implementation of the new EU Directive and the consistency of EU member state actions with the ICAO Assembly resolution on the ''balanced approach.''
With regard to emissions, the work program of ICAO's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP) includes consideration of more stringent engine exhaust emissions standards and market-based options to reduce aircraft emissions. Emissions based charges and taxes are also being considered in some European countries. The U.S. representatives to ICAO CAEP have stressed the importance of allowing ICAO to complete its work program before taking unilateral action. Otherwise, there is a significant risk of a proliferation of varying schemes and programs that may adversely impact the operational efficiency of the aviation system, without attaining meaningful environmental benefits in the longer term. Nevertheless, we believe that the domestic engine and airframe manufacturers are keenly aware of all of the emerging requirements and are taking these into account in order to maintain their competitive position in the international marketplace. The use of the Stage 3 fleet has no impact on emissions.
Q4. What are your views about establishing a top-level, federal transportation policy board that, among other roles, would develop and coordinate transportation research programs among the relevant departments and agencies?
Page 149 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A4. The key to coordinating investment and programs across agencies is having a national policy that defines what we want to achieve and then bringing the agencies together to build an integrated plan, including budget issues, to accomplish the policy.
We are looking to the Department of Transportation (DOT) to accomplish this task for the Administration. We believe that they are the best organization to develop an integrated aerospace plan for DOT, DOD, NASA, DOC, DOS and other agencies and will put in place the mechanisms necessary to support budget requests and monitor implementation to achieve our national priorities.
Questions Submitted by Mr. Gordon
Q1. What is going to be the relationship between the FAA and the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in conducting aviation security research?
Q1a. Will FAA facilities and workforce be transferred to the new administration, or will FAA perform work for TSA ''under contract''?
A1. On February 13, 2002, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, TSA Under Secretary John Magaw and DOT Deputy Secretary Michael Jackson signed a Decision Memorandum, which directed Under Secretary Magaw to assume responsibility for directing the operations of the former FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security, the Security Equipment Integrated Product Team (SEIPT), and the Aviation Security R&D Division. As a result, what had been the FAA's entire Aviation Security R&D Division is now part of TSA. The FAA has established a liaison person to coordinate aviation security R&D requirements. To date, there have been meetings and discussions to define the relationship and how best to respond to anticipated requirements from the TSA.
Page 150 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q1b. Will FAA retain any aviation security R&D responsibility?
A1b. The FAA will continue to maintain primary responsibility for its traditional research areas such as: air traffic control system development and infrastructure; weather; aircraft safety technology; human factors and aviation medicine; environment and energy; and the F&E advanced technology development and prototyping. However, there are areas where there will be overlaps with the TSA. These would include areas involving aircraft airworthiness with respect to design, operations and maintenance. These also would include standards for pilots, crews and airmen. In addition, there are the issues of secure communications for the Federal Air Marshals, protection of FAA facilities and computer systems security.
Q1c. How will aviation security R&D results be implemented in the air transportation system?
A1c. With respect to aircraft airworthiness and the related standards, the FAA's regulation and certification organization is in contact with its counterpart at TSA. Discussions on the various R&D proposals are ongoing to define an orderly research program that would lead to implementation through airworthiness standards and/or security standards, as appropriate.
With respect to ground based systems, it is expected that a process similar to the current one will continue. As products are developed, they are tested and evaluated. When they are ready they will be put into limited field testing and evaluated at designated airports. A transition team will conduct this process. Once a decision is made to field a product, e.g., explosive detection systems (EDS), trace detection systems, or threat image projection systems, the item will be passed to a group equivalent to the FAA's Security Equipment Integrated Product Team (SEIPT). Under the current structure, the TSA will be employing a large procurement/integration contractor with the SEIPT taking on a new role of monitoring. Since the incoming contractor will be focusing on meeting the December 31st deadline for fielding EDS systems, the nature and process for fielding future systems will need to be further defined by the TSA organization. This will also include any product improvements that come out of the R&D program that can be applied to systems already fielded.
Page 151 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q2. You indicate that FAA is exploring establishment of a Center of Excellence for Airport Noise Mitigation under the FAA's Air Transportation Centers of Excellence.
Q2a. What is the planned funding level and duration for the Center?
Q2b. How will participants in the Center be selected?
A2. The FAA is exploring the feasibility of establishing a Center of Excellence (COE) for Airport Noise Mitigation to forge a union of public sector (FAA, airport authorities, state/local governments, etc.), private sector (airlines, manufacturers, etc.), and academic institutions and create a world-class, self-sustaining consortium to identify solutions for airport noise problems.
If feasible and subject to budget approval, the FAA intends to provide a minimum of $400,000 per year for at least 7 years but not more than 10 years. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 44513, the agency would solicit proposals from institutions of higher education addressing the establishment of the aforementioned COE. The FAA would award 50–50 cost sharing cooperative agreement(s) (for the award of grants) and single source delivery order contract(s) to successful bidder(s).
Q3. With respect to transition of technologies,
Q3a. Is there now a gap in the support of the R&D needed for transitioning technologies between the technology readiness level at which NASA hands off a new technology and FAA picks it up for advanced development and procurement?
Page 152 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A3. There is no gap for those selected products whose continued development are F&E funded through the FAA's Free Flight Program. NASA develops products to the point that operational benefits have been demonstrated but are not at a maturity level to ensure reliability, supportability, and compatibility with the current National Airspace System (NAS). It is FAA's role to mature and integrate the product into its systems, finalize procedures for its use and transition to its operation in the NAS. This activity is F&E funded rather than R,E&D funded.
Q3b. Does the low level of funding for FAA's Research, Engineering, and Development budget result in a gap in R&D funding needed to allow for this transition of technology to implementation?
A3b. No, because the agency's FY 1999 Appropriations Act moved the air traffic services related R&D, except weather and human factors research, out of the R,E&D budget into the F&E budget. Using R,E&D funds for transitioning air traffic management technology to implementation would be inconsistent with that congressional action.
Question submitted by Mr. Weiner
Q1. We spend far more on dealing with the effects of noise than dealing with the root causes: FAA alone spends $300 million annually for noise abatement or mitigation (sound proofing, etc.), but proposes spending only $4.1 million on developing community noise standards in '03 and NASA proposes spending about $20 million in '03 developing quieter engines. Can you explain how the Administration determined the funding levels for research and development into quieter and cleaner engines?
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A1. Historically, the FAA has devoted the bulk of its research and development budget towards work in noise modeling, airspace assessment methodologies, noise monitoring systems, and aircraft noise certification guidance while also serving an advisory role on NASA research projects to identify aircraft noise reduction and cleaner engine technologies. The FY 2002 appropriations received in December, mandated per H.R. 107–308, a new role for the FAA as a direct, equal partner with NASA to accelerate the introduction of lower noise aircraft technologies. Since a one-year expenditure for long-term research does not provide technological relief, a multi-year investment program request is being reviewed. FAA will review the results already obtained from aircraft noise research and consult with NASA to determine the appropriate amounts to request in future budgets.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Richard S. Golaszewski, Executive Vice President, GRA, Inc., to questions submitted by Chairman Dana Rohrabacher
Q1. What are your views about establishing a top-level, federal transportation policy board that, among other roles, would develop and coordinate transportation research programs among the relevant departments and agencies?
A1. I am in favor of a body to coordinate multi-agency research relevant to the Nation's transportation system. FAA and NASA have gained much for the Nation by coordinating their research programs. In the post-September 11 environment, this is especially important because the nation must bring to bear technologies to improve aviation safety, and capacity, but there is now a renewed emphasis on aviation security. Technologies in the latter area may be best worked on by agencies that do not typically deal with transportation problems such as the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency and others. As such, the scope of coordination required is now much greater. A well-developed and coordinated research program means that agencies focus on worthwhile activities, while at the same time eliminating any wasteful duplication.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The thing that we must avoid is allowing a research coordination function move over into centralized planning of our transportation system. There have been proposals to develop point designs or to optimize the transportation system using a systems engineering approach. What we have learned is that the transportation system and its technology are quite dynamic and are affected by external events such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 as well as key policy changes such as deregulation. The needs for technology in transportation change over time and the transportation industry is also evolving in response to market forces. Thus, we require an adaptable research program that can respond to new needs and challenges as they arise. This calls for a well-balanced research portfolio.
Q2. Given the funding levels proposed by FAA and NASA for aeronautics R&D for the next five years, are these programs sufficiently funded and sufficiently focused on the right areas to prevent gridlock in our national airspace system?
Q2a. Is it a certainty there will be gridlock? If so, when? Is it too late for R&D investments to minimize or prevent gridlock?
Q2b. Assuming that traffic growth maintains a modest but steady increase, what will be the shape of out national airspace system five years from now based on current investment plans?
A2. Gridlock is not a certainty. However, unless air traffic system congestion problems are addressed either with improved technology or new management policies, we can expect those problems that have been temporarily abated in the traffic decline following September 11 to re-emerge. R&D to allow more aircraft to safely operate at the most congested airports is certainly part of the solution. We have been told how delays at on airport can back up through the system and affect flights over 1,000 miles away.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are also shortcomings in how we allocate scarce aviation system resources. Most would agree that congestion is a problem only at the top 40 or 50 airports in the U.S. However, the policies affecting the pricing of capacity at these airports are relics of an era where we were trying to promote usage of underutilized airports. While the capacity situation has changed, airport pricing is still mired in the past, set up to promote increased usage of infrastructure. While we need to add capacity to the system, we will never know what passengers and airlines really value until we price infrastructure properly.
It is not too late to invest in R&D to help alleviate congestion. One of the more interesting facts is that air traffic control technologies pursued by NASA mature from initial research to application relatively quickly in comparison to other aeronautics technologies.(see footnote 20) There may be a need however to provide R&D funding for FAA to conduct risk reduction technology validation to speed the pace at which these systems reach operational use within the ATC system.
FAA funding for ATC R&D has not kept pace with needs for new technologies. As a result, many of the hardware acquisition programs at FAA actually embed a research component in their early phases. The problem is that the development decision and the contractor for full-scale implementation have already been chosen, before technology validation and risk reduction research have taken place. In the past, this mode of operation led to failures in some of FAA's ATC technology programs. I believe that FAA is trying to address this problem with its emphasis on ''build an little; test a little'' and through spiral development programs. However, there still may be a need for FAA to recognize that R&D is required to validate technologies before system acquisition decisions are made.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The growth in aviation has been set back for at least three years by the events of September 11th, according to the most recent FAA forecasts. As such, there is now time available to resolve some of the more pressing capacity problems. In addition, air transportation growth may be hampered unless the nation finds ways to provide security that is less costly, time consuming and disruptive to air travel. Passengers and airlines are being asked to shoulder additional financial burdens associated with improved aviation security. The additional time required for passengers to clear security also raises the full price of travel to consumers.(see footnote 21) If we accept that there about 700 million enplanements in the U.S. each year, then the cost of adding one hour to each enplanement for additional time spent in security lines and screening to get through the airport is approximately $20 billion per year using a value of passenger time of $30 per hour. The overall costs to the economy are large, as are the potential benefits of employing technology to improve passenger and baggage screening to reduce the time involved.
With the current FAA and NASA investment plans, I expect the shape of the air transportation system to be much as it is today in five more years. The nation will still be grappling with congestion at the busiest airports. Most knowledgeable observers expect that, at best, we will be able to add enough capacity to keep delays at today's levels. While zero delay is not an optimum, we will still be grappling with how to properly price capacity and manage demand at the most congested airports. This of course presumes that we can learn how to improve security-screening processes so that they do not serve as a barrier to growth in the demand for air transportation. I believe this is the greatest problem we face in air transportation today.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by David Swain, Chief Technology Officer, The Boeing Company
Q1. Do you believe NASA and FAA have the right priorities and are investing in the appropriate lines of research to support the long-term needs of industry, given current and projected demand in the marketplace?
Do you have any specific recommendations to improve the relevance of government funded R&D?
A1. The Boeing Company believes that the level of funding for both the FAA Research, Engineering & Development (R,E&D) and NASA aeronautics should be significantly increased to meet the needs of our industry and citizens who depend on safe, secure, and reliable aviation services to meet their business and personal needs. A soon to be released economic impact study shows that civil aviation contributed over $900 million of economic benefit to our national economy in 2000. This represents nearly 10 percent of our gross domestic product. In contrast, the federal civil aviation and aeronautics research investment provided through the FY 2000 NASA aeronautics and FAA R,E&D programs represents a total investment of less than one tenth of one percent of this economic output. This level of research investment is inadequate to sustain the growth and competitiveness of our aviation and aerospace industries in the global marketplace.
Legislative proposals to double NASA aeronautics and FAA R,E&D funding by 2007 are necessary, but not sufficient to meet our strategic needs. The current lines of research continue to support some basic and applied technology for application to several important goals: improving the environment through lower noise and emissions, improving aviation safety, and enhancing the performance and efficiency of various air vehicles. Boeing believes that research investments in these areas need to continue.
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Boeing recommends that the Administration and Congress should also address a more fundamental national priority: a new aviation infrastructure to meet our long-term aviation security and capacity needs. While the ultimate acquisition and deployment of new air traffic management infrastructure is beyond the scope or resources of federal research budgets alone, they can provide a critical first step in support of this goal.
Initial research funding should be focused on a multi-agency, multi-year system definition, design, and validation activity that would provide a blueprint for implementation. Requirements, expertise and resources for this endeavor would need to come from several agencies including the FAA, NASA, Transportation Security Administration, DOD and other agencies responsible for homeland security.
While some research and enabling technology would be an element of this activity, the initial phase should focus on the development of system performance requirements, determination of an optimal operational concept and system architecture to meet these system requirements, and the utilization of new modeling, simulation, and analysis tools to quantify and validate system benefits.
Boeing believes that a next generation air traffic management system capable of meeting our aviation system's long-term security and capacity needs is essential to the economic health and prosperity of our nation. An initial definition and design phase utilizing R&D resources and expertise from both government and industry would be an important first step in the realization of this goal.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Q2. How much cost for noise improvements gets passed on to consumers in ticket prices?
A2. A recent GAO report (GAO–O1–1053, Aviation and the Environment, September 2001) reported estimates of major U.S. airlines' cost attributable to compliance with the Aircraft Noise and Capacity Act (ANCA). The GAO estimates range from $3.2 Billion to $32 Billion. These estimates assume that all of the costs were borne by the airlines, i.e., that any development costs borne by the manufacturers were fully recovered through sales to the airlines. Further, the estimates only pertain to the U.S. airlines. However, the industry is global and ICAO Chapter 3 standards have been adopted widely (including phase-out requirements), so substantial costs have been incurred worldwide.
From the consumers' perspective today's ticket prices are generally lower than the ticket prices of 1990 when ANCA took effect. While costs were increased to implement Stage 3, the continuing effects of deregulation, economic conditions and associated market pressures were forcing ticket prices to go lower. Airlines typically have responded with improvements in operational efficiency and improved yield management. Each airline aimed to make the best business decision in a dynamic, complex system.
By any methodology, the investment made by industry and government to achieve lower community noise is substantial. At Boeing, we understand the importance of low noise to the continued growth of commercial aviation, to the prosperity of associated commerce, and to the satisfaction of airport communities. Our airline customers have shown strong support for that direction.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the last few years both Boeing and the airlines worked hard to develop a new—Chapter 4—noise standard that goes into effect in January 2006 that will reduce the noise from new aircraft by at least 10 percent.
Q3. How would you characterize the number, quality, and capabilities of our nation's inventory of wind tunnels? Do we have too many, not enough; are they too expensive to access? What is your assessment?
A3. Wind tunnel testing plays a critical role in the development, validation, and support of every aerostructure. Despite constant improvements in analytical methods that in the future promise to reduce the demand for empirical testing, it is recognized that some amount of physical testing will continue to be required to validate computer models and to fully understand highly complex geometries and environmental conditions. The challenge facing The Boeing Company, NASA, the DOD, and the aerospace industry at large is to maintain and provide these required wind tunnel test capabilities in an affordable manner. To this end, Boeing, like nearly all domestic and international wind tunnel operators, is actively engaged in a series of efforts to rationalize its internal assets and to solidify key relationships with industry and government peers.
The state of domestic wind tunnels is very complex and is dependent upon the specific size, speed regime and capability. However, several general statements may be made:
Wind tunnel facilities are only the most visible components of the larger aerodynamic competency that also includes highly specialized testing and analytical skills, equipment, and technologies. Future U.S. aerospace strength depends upon the concurrent maintenance and development of each of these elements.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Overcapacity in some segments has recently led to facility closures (Boeing St. Louis Low Speed and Seattle High Speed Tunnels; UTC Low Speed Tunnel) and future mothballing (NASA Langley 16TT in 2004). Selected facilities (Boeing BVWT, Philadelphia) are currently undergoing upgrades or plan to upgrade in the near future (NASA Langley NTF in 2003) to improve data quality, productivity, and operating costs. The remaining domestic facilities (including their attendant skills and processes) must be viewed and supported as national technical assets.
Domestic undercapacity in other segments (large low-speed, high-Reynolds number) forces work to European providers (QinetiQ, UK; ONERA, France; ARA, UK). The NASA Ames 12ft test section is seen to be too small to adequately support this class of requirements.
Several specialized testing capabilities (examples include rotorcraft, forced dynamics, and rotary balance) are at risk. Because of their high cost relative to the low volume of work seen in such facilities, these assets are frequently targeted during cost-driven reductions. As facilities close, associated skills and processes frequently are also lost.
In the U.S., where a specific test capability may be found in more than one facility, significant variation exists in tunnel productivity, data quality, and charging practices. As an example, government owned facilities have not historically included the depreciation of tunnel assets in the charges billed to industry customers. This is contrary to typical commercial tunnel practice, (although several government-operated tunnels are moving towards full cost accounting that should include depreciation).
Diminishing total capacity requirements have resulted in competition between previously collaborative industry, universities, and nationally owned (and subsidized) facilities. Commercial programs, compelled to balance cost, technical quality, availability, and data security, are challenged to choose between internally owned tunnels with their relative certainty of access and security and externally owned tunnels with their lower (apparent) costs. Facility closures, frequently prompted by near-term economic imperatives, are themselves expensive and are essentially irreversible. A review of mothballed U.S. facilities shows no successful reactivations. Customers facing the closure of commercial tunnels also confront the real possibility of both reduced access to the remaining tunnels and higher cost brought by the movement of government tunnels to full cost recovery.
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In summary, the U.S. aerospace industry is rapidly approaching a critical threshold with regard to wind tunnel capabilities, below which our ability to sustain technical leadership is in jeopardy. In order to maintain this required competency while recognizing the financial constraints currently at work in the aerospace industry, U.S. wind tunnel operators must work together to collectively rationalize assets and to develop the common business practices that allow programs fluid access to the most capable facilities available.
ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Responses by Dr. John F. Cassidy, Jr., Senior Vice President, Science and Technology, United Technologies Research Center
Q1. Some European cities may soon impose highly stringent noise and emissions standards for aircraft landing at their airports. ICAO is also working on developing worldwide uniform standards for noise and emissions. Based on these emerging standards, will our domestic manufacturers be competitive with both the ICAO standard as well as the individual standards being discussed by several European cities? Will these standards restrict the use of the Stage 3 fleet in use today?
A1. Last year ICAO approved a Chapter 4 noise standard for new production aircraft effective in 2006. Pratt & Whitney is well positioned to respond competitively to this new requirement due to its cognizance of the standards setting process as well as its appropriate and timely investments in propulsion system noise reduction research and technology.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While ICAO did not recommend a phase-out of the current Stage 3 aircraft fleet on a worldwide basis, regional and local environmental pressures have resulted in a continued push for noise-related operating restrictions for significant portions of the current Stage 3 fleet at European airports. For example, the recently enacted EU Directive on Airport Operating Restrictions calls for the non-addition and phase-out of a significant portion of the Stage 3 fleet, which is unable to meet the new ICAO Chapter 4 standard. Similar restrictions are in place or being contemplated by a number of local European airports. U.S. manufacturers and their airline customers are at an unfair competitive disadvantage relative to European manufacturers and operators of aircraft and engines due to the makeup of the current fleet, which, historically, has a greater proportion of U.S. manufactured aircraft in the Stage 3 category.
With regard to emissions, numerous ICAO working groups are underway in preparation for the next Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection meeting in the fall of 2003. The CAEP will consider issues dealing with carbon dioxide (CO) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions. Ideas under discussion to control CO range from voluntary reductions to market-based proposals, such as emissions trading and imposition of emissions-based taxes. In terms of NOX, the committee may consider options for new more stringent standards, a production cut-off rule and methodologies to assess NOX emissions at other than sea level conditions.
Pratt & Whitney and other domestic manufacturers are working to competitively position themselves to address any new standards on the horizon. The industry is developing technology to increase engine efficiency at a rate of about one percent per year over 20 years for a 20 percent total improvement in efficiency. Engines produced 20 years from now will therefore emit 20 percent less CO than comparable engines today. The industry is also developing low NOX combustor technology that will have margins greater than 50 percent relative to today's standards.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
However, after having said all of the above, one must realize that tile strategy I have laid oust assumes a relatively level playing field for both government-funded Science & Technology (S&T) and government-mandated regulations. If the Europeans succeed in tipping the playing field in favor of their industries either by the significant increases in S&T funding called for in their Vision 2020 report, or by implementing product-specific regulations that discriminate against U.S. aircraft, American companies will certainly be disadvantaged. To prevent this from happening the USG must substantially increase its funding for aeronautical S&T, and be fully prepared to respond to any regulatory actions by the Europeans. To fail to do so risks the future of our industry.
Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AVIATION COALITION
77951v.eps
77951w.eps
77951x.eps
STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Aviation Transportation Policy Position Paper Executive Summary
The United States' air transportation system is a major contributor to the U.S. economy, national defense, and the quality of life Americans enjoy. Unfortunately, the system is no longer in a position to respond effectively to national needs and changing requirements. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) professionals recognize the critical importance of the air transportation industry to economic growth and national security. Contributing to the importance of these two areas encompasses military, commercial and general aviation—all with a critical need to share airspace. This paper recommends an efficient application and management approach for improving aviation while meeting the Nation's needs of the 21st century.
The AIAA is the premier aerospace society, representing over 30,000 professional aerospace engineers, scientists, and educators. The technical scope of AIAA encompasses 66 technical committees whose expertise ranges from economics and regulatory issues on the one hand to aerodynamics and flight operations on the other.
The importance of aviation and related transportation infrastructure to heavily populated areas such as the northeast has become evident. Commerce has become increasingly dependent upon the ability to move goods rapidly, while passenger travel for both business and leisure continues to increase, growing at approximately four percent annually over the past 20 years. Especially striking is the six percent annual growth in air cargo operations over the last decade.
In 1998, for example, the airline industry generated an estimated $273 billion, corresponding to three percent of the total Gross Domestic Product (GDP). This includes approximately $109 billion in direct expenditures and roughly $164 billion from associated activities such as travel agencies and visitor spending. In the same year, the aerospace industry employed over 1.6 million people in the United States, and air carriers generated $18.8 billion in taxes and fees for the government. As the events both preceding and following September 11, 2001 have demonstrated, any downturn in the Nation's aviation system not only depresses a significant driving force behind the GDP, but also creates a ripple effect throughout the economy.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since scheduled airlines were deregulated, more than twenty years ago, the dynamics of the air transportation industry have changed significantly. The airlines have restructured their networks to emphasize hub and spoke operations—other changes have included large-scale introduction of regional jets that will require new technologies and air traffic management (ATM) procedures for managing the flow of air traffic. Notwithstanding the tragic events of September 11, nothing on the horizon appears likely to slow the rapid growth in demand for air transportation services. The addition of security and safety measures appears certain to further increase constraints, exacerbating deficiencies of the National Airspace System (NAS).
The current NAS has evolved by reaction—to growth, accidents, and other urgent situations—and has often used available technologies developed for other missions. It is apparent that the future NAS design must be proactive and flexible enough to insert advanced technologies and future systems needs as a long-term growth strategy.
Success in formulating a plan for the future of the system rests on focusing the debate on the most salient issues. This is especially necessary given the large number of issues and the diversity of viewpoints involved. The pervasiveness of the NAS has created large groups of stakeholders including numerous government agencies, airlines, military, general aviation operators, aerospace industries, business aviation, and special interest groups whose constituencies are members of the general public. Environmental, economic, and political issues are also brought to bear on the debate. The redesign of the NAS requires government leadership with stakeholder participation and aerospace industry expertise. Given the required Government leadership, since all affiliated Government organizations come together at the Office of the President of the United States, Presidential action is required.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe that there is an urgent need for the development of a comprehensive national plan to address the problems described above. A national aviation policy similar to the National Highway Plan developed during the Eisenhower administration is recommended. We provide a rationale for the immediate issuance of a Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) that will ultimately result in the generation and implementation of such a plan to improve the Nation's aviation infrastructure.
A public policy will provide the framework needed for focusing the debate that will shape the air transportation system of the future. What is required is a policy, promulgated by the President, which will guide planning for the future evolution of this system. Such a system should be viable in terms of both responding to immediate needs and evolving in response to emerging requirements.
Redesigning the NAS will require government leadership with stakeholder participation. A PDD in the form of a National Aviation Policy that is supported by systems engineering and technology management is the key for success. Properly crafted, this policy will assure that the air transportation system of the future provides adequate capacity to meet the expected demands including appropriate aviation safety and security.
Based upon the information presented in this paper, the AIAA respectfully recommends the following:
President Bush should issue a Presidential Decision Directive that will establish a National Aviation Policy for the development of an upgraded air transportation system in the United States by the end of this decade. In essence, the system should achieve the goal of transporting anyone and anything, anywhere, on time, while providing safe, secure and efficient aviation capabilities in the United States and the world.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Supporting recommendations, for PDD inclusion, follow:
1) Create a National Aviation System Development Commission [NASDC] to perform a comprehensive analysis of the National Airspace System and develop a comprehensive report that represents their total understanding of all technical and business issues. The Commission shall have critical skills in systems engineering, technology management, airline operations, economics, air traffic control, airport management, and regulatory/policy development. Its members shall have the multidisciplinary capabilities to provide an in-depth technical and business analysis of system shortfalls and future requirements. The end result will be a report to comprehensively define the current system and future requirements—within six months of commission's inception.
2) Subsequent to issuance of the six-month report, the Commission shall be enhanced with additional skilled personnel charged with producing a complete National Aviation System Program Plan that, when executed, will achieve the National Aviation Goals for the future. Responsibilities of government agencies and other participants will be specified, and cooperation between and among them mandated. Critical issues such as cost, schedule, equippage, personnel, technology, transition, and operation of the system will be completely understood, integrated, and coordinated. This Program Plan, including multi-year funding profiles and resource requirements, plus organizational/structured operational implementation rules, shall be delivered within one year after initiation of the NASDC.
3) The Presidential Decision Directive will commit to put into place the elements of the Program Plan that will enable our National Aviation System Plan to be fully implemented by the end of this decade.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
(Footnote 1 return)
The William J. Hughes Technical Center, located in Atlantic City, NJ, is FAA's national laboratory.
(Footnote 2 return)
The four are: Revolutionize Aviation, Advance Space Transportation, Pioneer Technology Innovation, and Commercial Technology.
(Footnote 3 return)
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, ''Recent Trends in U.S. Aeronautics Research and Technology,'' 1999.
(Footnote 4 return)
Richard Golaszewski and Karen Blinder, ''Cooperation and Coordination in Federal Aviation Research,'' prepared for Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment, December 30, 1992.
(Footnote 5 return)
Federal Aviation Administration, ''Operational Evaluations Plan, Version 4.0'' (December 2001).
(Footnote 6 return)
This excludes FAA overhead attributable to the Air Traffic Services and Research and Acquisition activities.
(Footnote 7 return)
''Aviation Transportation Policy Position Paper,'' Aerospace Traffic Management Program Committee, AIAA, December 2001.
(Footnote 8 return)
Richard Golaszewski and Michael E. Levine, ''E-Z Pass for Aviation?,'' Airport Magazine, November/December 2001, pp. 54–55.
(Footnote 9 return)
Golaszewski, et al, ''Economic Analysis of Aeronautical R&T: A Survey,'' prepared for Office of Aero-Space Technology, NASA Headquarters under subcontract to SAIC, Arlington, VA, November 1999.
(Footnote 10 return)
''European Aeronautics—A Vision for 2020,'' Report of the Group of Personalities, European Commission (2001).
(Footnote 11 return)
Gregory Tassey, The Economics of R&D Policy, (Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1997), see especially Chapter 5.
(Footnote 12 return)
''Supporting R&D to Promote Economic Growth,'' <http://whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/econ/html/econ-rpt.html>
(Footnote 13 return)
Gregory Tassey, R&D Trends in the U.S. Economy: Strategies and Policy Implications, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards & Technology, Planning Report 99–2, (April 1999).
(Footnote 14 return)
Financial Times, May 1,1999, p. 4.
(Footnote 15 return)
Economic Report of the President
(Footnote 16 return)
FAA Aviation Forecasts, (various years)
(Footnote 17 return)
S. Morrison and C. Winston: The Evolution of the Airline Industry (Brookings: 1995)
(Footnote 18 return)
David Mowery, ''The Global Environment of U.S. Science and Technology Policies,'' in Harnessing Science and Technology for America's Economic Future (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), pp. 83–111.
(Footnote 19 return)
See Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record, pp. 92–96.
(Footnote 20 return)
''Case Studies: Time Required to Mature Aeronautic Technologies to Operational Readiness,'' prepared for NASA by SAIC and GRA, Incorporated, November 1999.
(Footnote 21 return)
The full price of travel suggests that passengers respond not only to money fares but also access time and costs as well as the time spent in travel.