Transcripts For CSPAN Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization 20141122

Hin at 2. Miiopeis a res me ar r imalcero fod et w ve a ausoprtittonothev th seiince itatn, ounrmeshe utulf tnseis isomhi tt s eecas geleth i meinec lerlymiio oamics. C tk ok rt, anhi b whe ce,utecse co aaj tchs stesasonin bau iit erctlltial a t th stec obm d ruis syic watt e tis anks fstanhoha ty ed ory eaie disg e thandvceisoran dcuanofoue didgd f h rotyndeang po, mmtin elueur tkans f l thk u ryucppus mebyheong stit apconatialcae teit14 tneep nhthere oma s te cba f topinfg roh 15thexpoed ce oerigd e intan wld tut miio ainilanps tegn at s re tdrrattionfo taset f wthe s. Ngtsors t80oo leou bte arta j k i utar p taer, g psealg rely remo rerte e so sckg pntonn ieanw lo dl ld frnoko, iay frisinth w pt prpety fry cora ts e. Y he indsf me sil, lydren, area i y d inofisgeouto e otr ra f n o th proh he beerhae tmt n d s. Vi cic sst e hdsfl iaonrg l spe e st thtwa de wa inthutue deraonhe e, bieveis ctilss nd ibe are ne cgr mmte skelds ngits ts om mbee unrsnder t h ss coe on larytr thsyemd r rarl,nd thsays w thwod anin toyheinis wl omatn beyiueweho loplesn erm oanpaenr tcd b fedr orites me ratnsaseed e f tenaonakolrspridtntlionndeno esve rsceecesfo. A tvew orpl mu e t frtr, le wso tebl thanthteti. He me rrou o merzaonrts ara a tlpoib. R r ecr l,t taonan gen unbity osms wh e faname trcomornatn deizio t f stiooferth. Gfyhath a ibityhes s spsie,nden es core himanro olecntueove e ghtonseer inobeg noisheime fous lrn omasmiakle atth hg mpitn w whe inhirooe tse oyo e ng togeth, nsoue hes daonorhe iaonf s. Amic weav be tinatiofo the pa 8 y a n se r mpitng omorgn rriganacre, d eden ur beaerin ed um minuc tmaet k 3exnsnssen oonol e akolrs painl perien vekentoo fevaab iwhane rresent isese i okorg om i oucoen t co s arrema op uuc wiesverodeaner stio a coenth trein or5 ysorio. Inatmiy tnor dag. Irerdf noyid rkior mb. Aton tchrm. E anr ts ou y thiziothin thil mi f gd t. Wk tt mepi btid rutriwi bsht d ifi sxton iik ahie meadf ilea oi ngret s and aion stein97 wweevof atn. Syasor c 20 y erha pont chaina ofirran e te anno,he e e odovnmt atheor a se afcoem is ike spe ndviprra rei rus coroinheirra gornnthebeng anal mesemlefr bh sideof is. Mneha ndfure g ha y. Anyo fohoinri aa omttev tase po ots i ulec almpe. Teha aat e n and hoaydheiraft,ar eqpmt,ornti jo, he a atee oteinhe toanearsisndde thfs ag chcacemyisic at, contuela inviioaf we bie trerein wo en dendehnog netsn te th rtr e ch oseor s. E headesnghe toy lrn tohibo aoo auorndeyd seremeshhavehefe mut ak aava usornity bldn aton fothrs i ltoheringd eticitiov foar ou orrdo rk etdllolag e miesfe ssgef t te us e hos,ludi a yiod,st ra le xttynd e go pgre iaon rte sea an plennga foacleties hinst areinsostnya ot fh thmsweav stnt f mieetoakre stamcatioth fwo oces ogssa s weecni m chleesnnihi tilngera tou aipa. Hfoevat othnaon s t rmo gfos. Ssavtoo tterin oinwiive a sol ph r d pgr w oe reha rethizes n bea iee expeme. Wre tgoth siifanir meal wh atenroe trngo lvanle rsnd hlve tht mingaf anway. Thht fit epategd. Uerd ayot be i okorarg w d sw tt. Chtf rkatee tbeonafy icio aeaac, pre coitntoarhi wl atrode inbityan ava feueoe tiirac thg is ar befo wtash l strih ombs ul mta wi tt jiomr da de thir y othis rkar nas. Ov m re hwionanbe th whnd hgo ryilr s mbee h b , b tg r ens wtrevopnd inouun ermeweouwo de. Woge tcoercei un fdi a minth bl rwd. The 4rk hionhiasto athth,meinor g lstu t a greuroi opr dtrt mrcoe,d blcoite av ti, frtrea, d sen a gat f derin gottoofhe e s daweoufure or ely orly stir ersu tng le wwi y wl tf kw u llo er catao. Wethene. R ctweno dexy ghi w hi hthin abto lt. Coite ourv t cmieepatynd scoite [dierbl s g w tou indg hid tgoacscsianotth e adofes wh m ll nay,mptaly m han grtrid al. Igog g re, d w gng e t. Wn r e ry te taedboowe wo tetr,icai its counatn. Y k. Ryoure, w wl geer tie thhe wwod agedo othe. We tese ie tothha woap rm. Mee co ila itru wla. Coteunnter anbaarwod come ck w ae puh d lpl t wre hor westf ne. Ct w f ttr sryhawa mut. Sffnstsot. Itt or disretoeron pillndisre ndipheasevop inweilmi y th y wl w d wa he ie catohi ay r gc. Ha y f yr mmd ermeerf th co bh deofhe slio o mmtebrgsalt ou a aeah owe abt anorti ovanbendnyg elori a th cmi is er f isountry ithat min th cmittee iaboujojo, jo when look ck othe s we pdud in a biparsa faion, youruly have return that spirit of bipartisanship, and every member has a desire to a desire to work across the partaisle in order to produce for the ameran people. This is where the this is where the future of the country is, in my opinion, and i feel safe that the future is in great hands under your lead. Ha cl uror, i recognize yayrogi ici itgeyonoi yr adndav en oth o kehiopitakmy heernoblan ngend ldiinio ov hye cgr stn isom iwe vgia beonng thinit tnsrtios s all in naid ngorntu r wiov ia irg reatyo. Coraou winfuref r cnt. Y hemeerwi tmryordanfo s mmte s whe ndtsteitl e e i aisnta ant pes ki wh y,dois a c tsit ic no i socee ldimte analhe veantoe meer orte 4 iouay wr sete he isbeissongacco t,e heen. Tcoero korulpaco rafo orcas. Trfig re. Onreskmotoheec utizer aaasou clsinmudimovtrl ftrrnio ahi ulun phngetct cietbeeeyes dg, nele nonftinl oineafuemnsve ctrfiacfo oshebyite96 a , te wov bged oundt exrice yerebu msbue 35on or dg abeulag s,els, ibl rang c ti art e ct 8ct ntctth aeontrg a ctf asaas te mo i g isk fotg a riitenfi ine trag ofasif s e skf pidendtsmpcono lye usfothonerbereerca o ndtron nessyle afe detr ist voeaafc ntpoan o f iitatbl onofheul onstem reiny ch truc caus t mle wo thoucte is t n boonthveth ccsf g aotio vy hgorn e he rp a, t tonofouatirrtt ri ant hiy. Leev, hoetg. Dimewithe d g. Anyo fue t reha20 emnse rgy y at cadn trfivi. A,reryul mff a avti l odandefrsu aifneorg tr edecolilen t. Nserzeasecicnsit naano wh an bbu f u ng stme. Yolcoerlyoboc s atn ce s ssasts omanormi rtn nu o me coti s t stctor s tbeea ang the airTraffic Control system from the faa safety regulator. This will establish safety regulation of the kind that currently applies to all the other actors and you u. S. Aviation. In u. S. Aviation. These three unanimous regulation, they are an excellent starting point. It is important that the financial and Business Model be sound, fully discussed, and broadly supported. Next years reauthorization offers a critically important opportunity to advance nexgen and put management of the National Airspace on a path to continuous modernization. Business roundtable looks forward to working with you to achieve these important goals. I have a more complete statement for submission to the record. I appreciate the opportunity to do that. Thank you very much. Next president of the Airline Pilots association. Captain, you are recognized for five minutes. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee i am , president of the Airline Pilot association international. Thank you for the opportunity to represent the 51,000 members who fly for 30 passenger and all Cargo Airlines in the United States and canada before the committee. When it comes to modernizing airspace in the United States, contrary to what you are hearing previously, i am happy to report we are on the verge of becoming a Success Story and one that you can help us write. We have made considerable progress during Turbulent Times , in spite of dealing with issues like sequestration and operating under 23 shortterm extensions. Nextgen is a Collaborative Initiative involving industry, government, and key users including Airline Pilots, controllers, technicians. The systems and components save time, time, fuel, emissions, and money while increasing safety. I want to underscore that. While increasing safety. There is there is no question our nations airspace needs an overhaul to prepare for the influx of passengers projected to arrive in our terminals and the continued growth of the cargo industry. And there is no question that there is room for growth in the Aviation Industry. I would say we agree on 95 of how to achieve that growth, but the 5 we disagree on lies and in how to pay for it and who pays for it. That is the real issue. A lack of commitment a lack of commitment when it comes to dedicated federal resources for problem we know is only going to get worse. We need leadership to set us on a path of continued infrastructure expansion so we can better serve customers and maintain our position as the world leader in aviation. Continuing the tradition of kicking the can down the road will result in failure, and like many of you in this room my hate i hate failure. We believe that we can fill that role in ensuring that the faa can count on the sustainable, longterm funding needed to get the job done right. However, for the Aviation Industry to succeed this funding must come from a a source that is separated from the constant jeopardy inherent in the reauthorization process. We simply cannot put the future of our nations airspace in the crosshairs of d. C. Politics. We are updating the largest, most complex, and safest air Transportation System in the world which requires everyone to be all in. Up until this point, that has not been the case. Several years ago airlines invested approximately 100,000 per aircraft to install controller Pilot Datalink Communications equipment. Only for the faa to cut funding because congress could not support it. That put airlines out millions of dollars, and left them with useless equipment on aircraft. Some of those airplanes are now being parked in the desert with equipment that was never used. If airlines invested in new equipment they have to seek a return on investment, not a different plan from a different administration. They want to see that return on investment through pilots, controllers, airlines we all want to operate in the 21st century. Not the 1950s infrastructure we are trying to replace. While the Current System is not perfect, performancewise it is one of the best in the world and is consistently pumping out 97 capacity through the system. I would caution the current Operational Performance and cost of the u. S. System may not warrant an immediate need for a complete overhaul, namely creating a standalone air Traffic Service provider similar to the model i have here showing you a scale of a scale of that model. Pilots will continue to operate safely. Again, i would respectfully offer the have canada model warrants amodel thorough investigation before we jump to the conclusion that it is the answer in the United States. As i mentioned earlier, the u. S. National airspace is by far the largest most complex airspace system in the world. The nav canada model might not translate well because it only covers roughly one quarter of the airspace. Thats our east coast alone. And seemsorked well completely manageable in canada might not even scale to our systems needs. We know our system has room to improve with structural changes to the governance serving the fundamental problems. We first need a debate about reliable funding. Have heard you say many times before, america invented aviation. We are the global leader. If we want to hold this position, we cannot allow government policies, through laws, regulation, or taxes to put us at a competitive disadvantage to the rest of the world. We already pay 17 unique taxes. The most of any industry. I know that you understand that. You introduced and passed legislation to make those 17 taxes more transparent to the traveling public. We thank you for that. We all know that there is more work to do. Of those 17 taxes some do not , even go back to aviation. I am sure i speak for many colleagues sitting on the panel when we say that we are fed up with the Aviation Industry being the piggy bank for Government Programs that have nothing to do with aviation. Finally, that is why i am asking you to invest in the us Aviation Industry and them here to underscore that we are committed to working together to make the tough choices necessary to ensure our system remains the best, safest on the planet and with your leadership, sir, Stable Funding can be held, and we can move forward. Thank you. All i can say is amen. With that, mr. Baker. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. President and ceo. Pull your microphone closer to you. This is not working. Can you shift over there . Happy to Work Together. Thank you. The general Aviation Industry is under stress and needs to enact policies and procedures that will support growth. Over the past decade, the number of private pilots has fallen by more than 6,000 each year. In addition the fleet is on average more than 40 years old. The number of single engine piston part aircraft being produced in the u. S. Has fallen dramatically, from more than 14,000 to just 674 many in 2013. Many stressors on the industry are compounded by outdated faa processes that are costly and cumbersome. A longterm reform minded a authorization measure is needed. As the committee develops a multi year faa reauthorization we encourage the inclusion of provisions that give the direction and tools needed to improve internal processes. The regulatory and certification processes used today may have been needed 30 or 40 years ago. They simply cannot keep pace with todays rapid pace and improvement in technology. Changing these processes in ways that lower cost reducing , bureaucracy, improving safety. This will help aviation grow. This should be our collective goals. Goals. I would like to provide three examples of areas. One, medical reform, aircraft certification and retrofit and the faa vsb mandate. A third class medical reform is long overdue. Three years ago, we filed a petition requesting expansion. The standard put in place more than a decade. This allows models the fly with a cursory medical check, the support pilot flies small aircraft. They are limited to two seats. Decision to eliminate the third class medical for these pilots was the correct one. Over the past decade, it has not had a discernible impact on safety. It helped grow the sport pilot section of aviation. Expanding this to private pilots would save in excess of 25 million a year. Today other than support pilots , all general aviation pilots under 40 years old must take a medical exam every five years. Over 40 need an exam every two years. In addition pilots are required to undergo a flight review with an faa certified instructor who must determine the pilots competency and ability to fly. We believe 10 years of experience, we have the sport pilot standard that demonstrates it should be expanded to a larger segment of general aviation pilots. The faa and the department of transportation are currently reviewing a proposal. The bills have nearly 185 bipartisan cosponsors. We thank you for your vigorous support. Expanding the standard to more pilots is a top priority for us. We look forward to working with you, this committee, and the next congress. Certification and Regulatory Reform are urgently needed. Since 2008, the Aviation Industry has been working to streamline the magnification to manufacturing of aircraft. The bill was signed into law to fully realize the benefits the regulations and orders for richer fitting existing aircraft with new equipment must be streamlined and transformed. These realities are highlighted by the fact that the the general aviation fleet is more than 40 years old. Most aircraft rely on decadesold technology. Widespread availability can make flying easier, safer, less expensive, and given the industry a muchneeded boost. The desire to create a Gold Standard for safety is admirable. In practice this approach has the opposite effect that lower cost which might ultimately improve safety. The faa mandate is too expensive. Set a standard of january 1, 2020 to have equipment. In order to fly near large cities and airports. Standards were designed for commercial airlines and the resulting equipment is just too costly. More than 81,000 are worth less than 40,000. That puts the 5,000 to 6000 alumina will cost beyond the reach of many owners. Without changes we will see airplanes parked in fields and reduced to limited flying , seriously damaging the thousands of small aviation businesses nationwide. We believe that technological advances could be a point to strategy that would lower the cost and compliance with faas mandate. We look forward to working closely with the faa to make lowcost Solutions Available to all segments of general aviation to participate in the modernized air traffic. In conclusion, we believe the future of general aviation relies on the regulatory processes that both the faa and dot. We dont believe the faa has a funding problem. This committee has increase the faa budget by more than 500 . The system of funding the faa through excise tackett taxes has proven both efficient and effective. The faas nearly 16 billion budget gives the agency sufficient resources to make needed changes in the way it oversees general aviation. The challenge facing the faa is to use those resources to improve efficiencies. We need the faa to embrace a system that can keep us with rapidly changing technology that is comfortable, timely, and economical safety improvements that will work to reduce risk tore hundreds of thousands of general aviation pilots. When pilots, industry, and the faa Work Together we see positive results. We appreciate your leadership on these important issues. Thank you, mr. Baker. Now mr. Calio, president and ceo of airlines for america. Mr. Chairman, numbers of the committee, we appreciate opportunity to par tis pate in participate in this hearing on the operation and modernization of the system. Of u. S. Aviation, and the future growth of our economy. At stake are whether you and your constituents can get to your destinations faster, smarter, and in a more environmentally friendly way. Nick, can you get closer to the mic. Sorry. Im already standing up, mr. Chairman. [laughter] at stake is whether you and your constituents can get to destinations faster, smarter, and more efficiently. Aviation is 5 of our Gross Domestic Product. The question before the committee is simple. Can we move people products in a more efficient manner with a more modern system . There seems to be little disagreement that we can do so. Three federal commissions and reams of testimony and multiple speeches all agree to the point. So the question becomes, how do we get that system and what does it look like . Here, the clarity of the goal starts to get consultative. Complicated. You called for transformational change, and we agree. Stakeholders have different interests, and my guess is this committee will have resistance to potential changes. And undeniable record of missteps, cost overruns, and equipment gone bad exists. Its been detailed before this committee, been detailed by gao reports, by the Inspector General, and others. Some of that record, as well as particular airline disappointments are detailed in my written testimony. I commend the testimony to you. So, the record begs a series of questions. That need to be asked and what an historic opportunity this reauthorization bill presents. Does the United States have the best governance funding structure in place to deliver the most efficient, modern, air Traffic Control system . Have the atc models used by other countries enhanced safety and efficiency, and if so, can the best attributes be applied in our system here without adversely impacting safety . If yes, would the adoption actually improve our system, which is a key question obviously, and if so, at what cost and to whom . Asking these questions is not a criticism of the current faa leadership. They have been advancing the ball. However, it is simple my a need to ask and examine these questions given the checkered history of progress and frankly , the stakes for maintaining the status quo. A4a has an open mind on these questions. To that end, we have engaged independent aviation experts to create a fact base and see of the facts lead to us any kind of conclusions. Our study is benchmarking the financial, operational, and governance performance of the u. S. System against modeled of other countries, evaluating risks and opportunities for specific elements of reform on the u. S. System, and developing u. S. Atc options, highlighting the benefits, economically and implications for next jen as welling a potential governance reform. The work is incomplete but basic observations are emerging. First, the difficulty modernization efforts encountered in the past seem to consistently come back to governance structure and funding questions. Next, the commercialized atc model present three alternatives to consider, represented by the united kingdom, with a Public Private partner ship, and canada, a completely independent commercial corporations, and then germany, which is an apt an independent governmentowned corporation. All three models engage air space users in decisionmaking to a greater and more structured degree than we do here. All three models have improved system safety and efficiency, and all three systems, all three models, has implemented longterm modernization programs smoothly. We have ane good aviation system, the best pilots, the best air Traffic Controllers, but frankly we can do better. Its clear that we dont need another federal commission on this issue. What we do need is for the congress and all major stakeholders to keep an open mind and take a clinical factbased approach to look at possible Solutions Including models in other countries. If we determine that significant reforms are not necessary, or, frankly, not politically achievable, then we still need to examine what we can do about the bottlenecks and difficulties and obstacles in the Current System, and admit we might find answers outside the u. S. And apply them here. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, now, turn to mr. Paul renaldi. President of the national air Traffic Controllers association. Your recognize for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify is an honor. We all have a stake in the National Air Space system. Its an economic engine. It contributes 1. 5 trillion to our Gross Domestic Product every year and provides 12 million american jobs. We appreciate the committee for the outreach on the industry in order to bert understand the better understand the issues and problems in the National Air Space system. This committize doing it the th right way. Identify the problem and then develop the right solution. What we must make something clear. Any change we make needs to be accomplished with the precision like approach so we dont interrupt the daytoday operation of the National Air Space system. Currently we run the largest, safest, most efficient, most complex, most diverse air space system in the world. Our system is incomparable, unequaled and unrivaled by any country in the world. The United States air space system and the faa is considered the Gold Standard in the world Aviation Industry. And yet, we come to the reality, we need a change. The globalization and innovation that are driving dramatic changes in Aviation Industry. Our Current System serves well to this point. However, we face many challenges in responding to the problems of an unstable budget, the inability to finance longmaterial projects, longterm projects, competing stakeholder interests, the inability to grow the National Air Space system for new years and legislative priorities. Every stakeholder in the National Air Space system should Work Together to ensure that the United States continues to be the world leader. Without change, we face continued funding uncertainty. We all remember the disruptions that we experienced in 2013 with sequester. In march, the faa scaled down all modernwidation projectes, modernization projects, looked at closing 238 air Traffic Control towers, and tried to close 149 of them. They tried to reduce services across many airports in this country. They stopped atc hiring for the full year which is still causing , a rippling problem today. They furloughed air Traffic Controlleres, causing rippling delays in the system. They went to a fix on fail maintenance philosophy, and stopped stockpiling critical parts for essential equipment, to all meet the budget restrictions of sequester. Currently the faa is working on what reductions they need to do, starting in october of next year, as sequester comes back into effect. This just cant happen again. This is no way to treat this economic engine and no way to treat our National Air Space system. You see, without change, we will continue to struggle to develop, train, implement, the nextgen initiatives. Currently the faa are working on the nextgen advisory committee, we are implementing projects and deploying new equipment and procedures across the country in order to keep pace we need be properly funded and the faa needs to be adequately staffed which can only happen with a stable, predictable funding system. Without a change we will continue to struggle to maintain proper resources and staffing for our air Traffic Control facilities. The air Traffic Controllers are the backbone of the National Air Space system. We should never shortstaff our facilities. Air Traffic Controllers maintain a safe, orderly flow of aircraft across the country. In addition to that, they are the subject Matter Experts that help us develop, implement, and train the next jen initiatives. Nextgen initiatives. And on the job training for every new hire that comes into the system. This requires to us be appropriately staffed, and an understaffed facility can barely keep all the positions open to run the daytoday operations safely and efficiently. Nevertheless, theyre going to have to train our controllers on new Nextgen Technology and equipment. Understaffing will delay modernization projects. Well be responsible for the overcost runs. Mr. Chairman, our National Air Space system is an american treasure. We cannot treasure of we cannot treat it like we did in 2013. Aviation is uniquely an american tradition. We need to make changes to secure a Stable Funding system, a proper governance so that we can continue be the world leader, which will allow to us grow the aviation system, not some rink it, or allow us to integrate knew new users probably and will give us the Competitive Edge to continue to be world leader in aviation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to asking you questions you may ask. Thank you all of you for being here today. We have a number of members that are in the queue for practice. Our practice on the republican side, if youre here when the gavel goes down, you i will eue. Ou get first in the qu the yield five minutes, and i will be brutal with the gavel on the fiveminute rule. Because of everybody shows up, we will be here for a long time. So five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I dont want you to be brutal with me. Thank you, panel, for being here. I think most of you know that rick larsen and myself have really focused in on nextgen and the implementation, and how this is coming together, so what id like to know, starting with you, mr. Scovel we task the faa with creating a implex addition Implementation Plan to deliver shortterm nextgen benefits. A copyber, we received of the plan. Can you tell us what you think of the priorities for the faas Implementation Plan to address this . Thank you. Certainly were aware that the nacs recommendations to faa and faas plan in october. And as you may remember this committee tasked my office in the Inspector General to review faas plans for moving nextgen forward personally in the near term. So faas commitment to the recommendations has been vitally important and were greatly encouraged by those. As the committee knows from reading the report and faas recommendations, those entailed a greater commitment to performance, based navigation, which our office has endorsed for a long time now. Commitment to Service Operations so when aircraft get on the ground, they can move around the airport surface in an efficient and effective manner, and datacom coming up in years to , come, in 2019 specifically. So those are three of the main recommendations from nac which faa endorsed. And attempts to move out on. We would put, if anything, an asterisk for the committees consideration next to performancebased navigation. This has been a priority for the Airline Industry for a long time. Its one that will allow them to move their aircraft in an efficient way, provide fuel savings on route, but faa has historically now had problems in developing those procedures and getting them certified. So, if those problems with delay in the past were to continue in the future, the objectives for nearterm success, according to the priorities, may not be realized. Mr. Calio, same question. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would agree, performancebased navigation has been a key priority. We helped develop the priorities that the nac suggested. We think theyre critical. The whole point is to move to near term benefits to stakeholder can see benefits from investment. Some is going painfully slowly , despite best efforts. We have moved very slowly on pbn, going city by city, metroplex by metroplex, with not a lot of showing for it. A lot has to do with the procedures being developed. We have the equipment on the aircraft to do it but the process and the procedures to get those planes to use it is not really happening very quickly and theres a whole variety of reasons, some of which are detailed in our written testimony. Its a matter of us being able to fly, the controllers being able to use them in different places. So if we do it, it has to be more scalable across the country. Otherwise well take years and years to get it to work. Meanwhile we have other technologies mandated that are not harmonized for others for which the cost benefit has not been reviewed. So pbn would be the quickest way to get quick results. Mr. Renaldi, id like your take on this one. We were part of the nac initiatives. We agree with the initiatives. I will tell you, changing major air space and flows in and out of metroplex is not an easy task. Not something we can develop in a sterile room and roll it out. It has to be tested and developed and continued to be tested with pilots, and then tweaked. Its not an easy thing to do. Sounds like an easy thing to do but certainly not. The one thing that will slow us down is the unStable Funding. The second we have to fall back and we dont have the funding to continue these initiatives, we stop all modernization projects and just focus on running the daytoday operations, safe and efficient flow of airplanes. Thank you, chairman will make sure we have Stable Funding. Thank you. With your help. With that, recognize Ranking Member larsen for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Renaldi, you discussed some of the discussion about ato reform and so on. What reservations would the air Traffic Controllers have regarding a change in the air Traffic Organization . Obviously anytime you make change to a system that is as large as this and as efficient as we are at this point, we dont want to disrupt the daytoday operation. We cant lose focus. Currently we are running the worlds safest, largest, most complex, most diverse system in the world. So if we make changes we have to be very precisionlike, do it very methodically to ensure we do not interrupt the safe and orderly flow of airplanes in the United States. Captain moak, similar question. You laid out broad principles about your concerns. What specific do you have specific items you would like to help us understand with regards to separating air traffic functions out from the faa . Just a couple of things. First off, were having a get closer to the mic. This is kind of a highclass problem in the United States. If you read the papers and watch the news, you know theyre having accidents all over the world. But in the United States we have the safest air space in the world. But we dont stop there. But we want to improve that, we want to it be more efficient, we want to save fuel. We are doing that with the idea that we have the safest air space in the world. Best controllers, best pilots, best procedures. So, the idea that were just going to go to another system, okay, i think we should take pause there and think through it. Now, the Current System is performing quite well , operationally. Our airlines have been through consolidation over the last few years. Theyre performing quite well. And so it gives us the ability to step back, look at it, modernize it. Thats important. Very important. And all you have to do is look at the d. O. T. Bureau of transportation statistics and now when they report out of different metrics for the Airline Industry, theyre much improved. On the issues of pbm, we can do better. The controllers are trained, the pilots are trained. The airlines are equipped and we have to keep getting at it. Its difficult to bring it on line, but when it is brought online, it is truly remarkable. So i would say proceed cautiously with throwing everything out and, again, i want to underscore the whole thing about Stable Funding going forward. Mr. Calio, youre doing a report, governor engler mentioned a report, you mentioned all the reports that have been done. A lot of reports. It seems to me that the timing of these, if were going to be moving forward in any way, shape or form, whether its a larger reform or management reforms or individual reforms things have to come to a head quickly if were going to be moving forward here by the september 2015. Im hearing a tapping. Thats not you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Youre just impatient, generally. Have you thought through the timing for us . Yes, we have. Well be done shortly and be in to brief you. We know that you need the material. From our perspective in order to develop a position, we need to know what the facts are and, again, were trying to do it in a dispassionate fashion so we can take a look at our system. We are not suggesting major changes. We are trying to seive they see if they would be worthwhile, whether they can be made and if they can, what the impact would be. Okay, thank you. Governor engler, have you all in throughout through the flip the switch moment, that is, when you move from one model to the next model as youre thinking through the ideas youre presenting here . Well, i think thats part of the conversation and clearly even under congressional mandate there have been changes in the creation of a chief operating officer responsibility of the ato itself there have been iterations coming along, so i certainly would echo the safest, largestdont mess with the way it works but you too have a challenge, i think, inside faa that we have heard a lot about other stakeholders, about you sort of got this technical buildout proposition, and i mentioned the idea of our focus on funding. Thats very important and key decisions to be made. Even the one of weakness in the federal budget, the lack of a capital bugging process, and so the attractiveness of being able to bomb this, gift thens get this funded and built out without financially interruption, let that happen. At the same time, theres tremendous amount of work inside the faa in the modernization of procedures and practices and training and vetting that has been discussed here today. So, it seems to me theres plenty of work for everyone. That flip the switch moment is not so much a disruptive thing. I think that takes time and i dont think its anything abrupt and certainly cant be anything that disrupts the functioning of what has worked well. I recognize mr. Massey. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Baker, from your written and spoken testimony, its my understanding that youre saying that the faas approval process could be making general aviation more risky or less safe, and can you explain how that is . What needs to change about the approval process . Is it taking too long to get technological improvements integrated into general Aviation Industry . Exactly right. Can you hear me now . Okay. The idea that you have an aircraft that was 40 years old, the equivalent of having you car with an am radio, and the certification for an fm radio could take years and millions of dollars. The industry says it costs to much, takes to lot of and not willing to put the updated progress in aircraft. Situational awareness leads to accidents. Today the ipad added commercial more value to Situational Awareness than anything else. If you tried to install that equipment on aircraft it would take millions of dollars and take years to get it done. So there should be an expedited process. We have experimental aircraft that great auto pilots great good at games, great in Situational Awareness, and very low cost. So the systems that move quickly quickly and the faa has not moved in the process yet. The new aircraft which is hundreds of thousands of dollars, you can get it done. So they need to be moving quicker. Is there anything in this faa reauthorization that we could do in congress to encourage that . We think there could be an opportunity to put old aircraft in a Legacy Program or classic program to get these thinged expedited. Things expedited. It could be done. While we are on the topic of techologial improvements the adsb adoption in general aviation, what does it cost, the least costly entry point for somebody in general aviation to become compliant with the 2020 standard . So, for the adsb out, which gives the pilot in the cockpit no information, no traffic or weather information, just pings out, it 5,000 or 6,000 installed today on an aircraft that many are worth less than 25,000. So, its over 20 of the cost of the aircraft. You get no advantage. Is it reasonable to expect some will be parked in hangars or boneyards and pilots now wont be flying because of this . Thats the risk. There needs to be a lower cost solution. Whats your organization doing to promote this lower cost solution . Were currently working with the general aviation many factoring Manufacturing Association and the faa to say there is another type of portable device that could be recognize. The ipad wasnt invented with the atsb came out. Could there be Something Like our cell phone that is pinging out with an adequate level for the airport. Do we need that for a twopassenger airplane. Subject of technology here, the faa seems to be behind on issuing rulings on drones and integrating uas, uab, whatever you want to call them, integrating them into the air space. How far behind are they right now . They are behind and theyre behind the mandate established by congress in the last reauthorization from 2012. When we write this authorization we should say we really mean it this time. Well, yes, absolutely, and it would certainly help everybody if the agency listened. Look, faa as slow in dig e designating sites. Six of them. They were finally designated first we went through congress authorization or mandate but we have found that the agencys plans to develop data and to learn from the results that acue from operations at these test sites have not been prepared to the agencys satisfaction and certainly not to the needs of the burgeoning industry. When it comes to, as well to gathering safety data from uaf users currently in the system and from the department of the defense, faa has a lot to learn, a long way to go. I wish they were here today to defend themselves or give in the an answer to next question but in your estimation when do you think theyll give us some rules . I have a constituent on behalf of a constituent i sent a letter to the faa asking them to point me to the rules and i dont have a response. Been too you think they might come up with some rules . Theyre spending the money, understand. Yes. The socalled small uaf rule has been promised by the end of the year. Im not kind of uas your constituent might be interested in operating but if its small, i would say, stay tuned, see what faa can produce by the end of the year. Sounds like mr. Baker kind of hinted at an idea that it could help us with drones, the accuracy . Maybe we could relax rules for accuracy . Captain moak . One point i think that is being missed here. In commercial aviation, to keep it safe and keep our passengers safe, we need to know where all the planes are. Im confident working with mark and aopa well be able to achieve that. But on the points made down here, i think i couldnt disagree more with the analysis coming out. We have to be using the same principles, a certification, of the aircraft, the remote piloted aircraft, the drone, the operator, and the people that are operating them as we do for airlines so that we have the same safety. My time expired. You have commercial entities to encourage to break the rules i do not exist anywhere anecdotal stories of near collisions, so i think it is incumbent upon us to get these rules up so that everybody benefits. Thank you, mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Mr. Manzi. U, first off, the biggest problem relates to budget, money, sequestration, all of of allop this year, 83 faa operations and acquisitions is being paid for out of declassified. You could look at it and say we go to we have got a 17 problem, if the trust fund can cover 17 , we make it mandatory spending and we will not have these stupid issues with shutdowns and sequestrations and all of these certain things in the future. That would help a great deal will stop i would like people to recommend an faa procurement. How do we fix that . Oving always a m target. We always have too many changes orders. I would like people to think about that. Out,ve a dispute, and schedules, we have a mandate. They have no ground system. Why can we harmonize those things . Why cant we harmonize the schedule for adoption so that there will be role benefits to people both in europe and the United States of america . I would love to hear more about that and then on air Traffic Control, a lot of my information is somewhat dated a midair collision that killed people in europe because they were understaffed and the one person on duty was off doing something somewhere. That is an issue. When i looked at the productivity issues, we are virtually identical with canada. I think that making major changes there is a steep slope, but i am willing to have a thoughtful discussion about that. Now i will get to a question, which will be directed principally to mr. Rinaldi. We have to staff up, a lot of retirements. Policies are forcing more people to consider early out i read in your testimony. Why do you take people who have just graduated from the academy and send them to the highest level facility and basically engender a high failure a high failure rate . What could the rationale be . Could we have more retention and better controllers if we change that . Great question. The simple answer is, yes, we could have a better system. [technical difficulties] i have power. Do i have power . I got power. Good. All right. There we go. It is a great question. We could retain more controllers. If we sent them to lowerlevel facilities and met them develop and hone their skills. Our busy tray cons are struggling with staffing because it has been an faa way to take you to somebody freshly new out of the academy and send them to atlanta, new york, chicago and within six to eight months they are unsuccessful and get sent to lowerlevel facilities. We tried working with the agency for about two years now develop a process to develop to move the controllers of the lowerlevel facilities where they are honing in developing skills so they can maintain the ability to do it at a high level like new york, atlanta, or chicago. We are not there yet. We should have been done with this about a year ago. The new hires what is so hard about it . You will have to ask them. It is taking a long time. We thought we had a good plan, but it is taking it is taking a very long time to implement it. When you take someone straight out of the academy and send them, they do not have the Training Program to teach them. I have sat there and watched the screens. I could not do it. I would not even begin to think that i could do it. Do you want to respond to the idea of harmonization in terms of the schedule with europe on adsb . Would that eliminate the concerns . It would not eliminate all. This is a classic case of the standard being embraced. As i said during my earlier testimony we have made a lot of investments. Now we have mandates on the equipment, and we dont know how it will work, whether the standard will change, whether the equipment will change. Harmonization is one part of it, but it, but making it work and making a Business Case is critical, and if you go back through the cost overruns and failures and hiccups here that , is consistently one of the problems. It must be part of the process as to how you get to where you are when you say do use this equipment. Back to the procurement issue. And as i understand adsb, do you think it is critical we have realtime updates as opposed to every seven or eight seconds , which is what i understand. More Accurate Information and more timely information, especially in the interim environment where you can get constant updates of airplanes moving at a very high a very high speed is valuable. It is a lowerlevel activity i am not sure that there really is a a bank for about there so to speak. There sok for a buck to speak. Thank you. Mr. Graves is recognized for five minutes. Thank you. The first question is for Inspector General scovel. In your recent audit report how many commercial general aviation aircraft will be affected by the update . Thanks, mr. Graves. By our count, and it is an estimate 220,000 general , aviation aircraft are subject to the mandate. About 18,000 commercial aircraft as well. The entiret include existing fleet . Virtually. Yes, sir. Do the numbers change, or change, or do you anticipate them changing . They will move up and down, but we believe between now and 2020 those numbers will hold generally firm in that range , which is the problem some of my fellow witnesses have spoken to, the ability of the Manufacturing Industry to produce the equipment, the ability of faa to get it certified, simply time and space for aircraft owners to get there their planes into repair facilities and stations so that those boxes can be installed on the aircraft. It is a tough road. My next question is probably for mr. Rinaldi, but we have a situation. One of the things promised is lowered cost that will save us money over the long run to eliminate the outdated system , which is obviously passive radar and radar overall but we all know too with adsb [inaudible] there we are. You can go invisible, if you want, if you pull that circuit breaker. There is no way of tracking that plane. Then you hear the argument of making the system permanent. We know in an airplane you do not want to have a system that cannot be disabled if you have obviously an electrical failure or whatever the case may be. What worries me is ultimately we will be operating two systems. We will never achieve any cost savings. I would be very curious what you think, captain. Nick, you can weigh in, and i would like, mr. Baker, if you could, too. Go ahead. We have a problem that we will be able to work through on implementation mandates, but lets be clear. This is revolutionary, what we need, probably did five years ago, less separation, can fly curved approaches at 600 miles per hour. You go a long way in seven seconds. This is where we should be going and will help aviation tremendously. The few things that we disagree on, we need to Work Together to address them. Cost is one of them, we get adsb is good for the airline, good for the air Traffic Controller, controller, good for our customers, good all the way around. We we just have to work through those hiccups. The safety aspects. Will we operate two systems . We always do that. From the military folks we normally have two systems. It is rarely you can ever have a light switch on this. That is part of this transformative issue. And you will have cost savings when fully implemented. We will go ahead and hear from mr. Baker. The concern that we have is the cost related to the benefit. It is just to get it out. We think just to have some Better Weather in the cockpit, it would be of benefit. Simply getting to the benefit over time. That was a big part of the initiative to save money here, so the cost benefit to the government is probably not accurate today. I should have i should have stated early on we believe its a cornerstone. There are issues i have laid out that must be worked through. The call to action meeting they had earlier was a good start, but there are still issues that must be resolved in order to achieve any cost savings increased safety down the line. In terms of two systems, yes, we always do, but once we get past all of that we will have a a much better system assuming we can work out the problems. I know that my time has expired, but i would like to here from you on this. To think we will shut down the radar system in this country and that someone will be able to shut off the transponder and we wont be able to track airplanes, and i think that it shows a tremendous amount of value, but we have to have a necessary redundancy of the radar system also. You are recognized for five minutes. Whacks thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I am about to get on the plane for the fifth time in nine days and i just want to make sure it is safe, safe, right . We are good . Yes. Thank you. Yes. We are paying for it. I dont think it hurt anything i disagree with this far as where we want to go. We have a good system that we want to make better. That is natural, american, good. I have a problem. Everything i know that i want to make better about myself or my family or everything costs money. Somebody has to pay for it. And i think i heard everyone in agreement that we are short on funds, but i am not sure i heard anyone say where we should get those funds. So does anyone have any suggestions, because i would like to hear . I have one thing i want to say. We need to give the faa or encourage or structure to be able to use private Enterprise Business principles when putting in an Infrastructure Program like this. You know, to have been doing with they are doing with one arm tied behind their back. I understand and appreciate that, captain. That saves money and reduces the funding gap. I need more explanation. I love those generic terms that business can do everything better than everyone else and it sounds good and really fits the bumper sticker. Im not sure what you mean. I read governor englers testimony and agree. At t, has example rightfully , improve their Business Model. Example, rightly improved their Business Model. It cost them a fortune. It cost a lot of money to go from an old tape system to a new 4g system. Someone had to pay for it. And at t has shareholders expanding their business footprint and charging me more, which is fine. How will we expand our footprint if more people are flying and charge them more and keep them flying to back if we dont do that even private businesses have to make money. If you are telling me there is that much waste, i would love to hear where. Show me the numbers. Generic statements are fine, but show me the numbers. Congressman, we are congressman, we are happy to provide it for you. But stabilized funding in a funding shortfall is a little different. You you cannot be working up and then all of a sudden have funds shut down. Captain, i agree with you. I voted against the sequester. You are talking to the wrong guy. I did not mean it like that, but i also want to point out that occasionally some of these cell phones still drop calls despite the infrastructure improvements. Well, they are trying to improve, too. As they improve, it is costing them money. All i am saying is we want to get next gen, someone has to pay for it. It will either be taxpayers for people who use airplanes, the customer. Who else is going to do it . If it is the customer, lets not pretend that by the government saying we will expend money and simply have someone else charge you for that is not a tax. It is. I am not against it, but i dont want to kid myself. If government takes action that is either a a direct or indirect tax. Call it whatever you want. That includes raising the cost of my airline ticket. Well, that is kind of what we do. Who is going to pay for this . I am all for it. By the way, i guess it is appropriate i am on the far left of this panel. I am not afraid of that. For me, honesty is more important than anything else. If we are going to keep up and improve, someone has to pay for. It. Are any of you willing to say that somebody other than somebody else will pay for it . Are you willing to help pay for it . Let me take a shot, mr. Chairman, a little bit of perspective. One, just in doing the build i think the government ought to have a Capital Budget process. That is something pretty much every state has. Companies have that. I am in. And when you do a big project, which next gen at least in terms of technology, we are going to use the system for a lot of years. You get the you get the money and then go out and carefully invest the money. You would not stop and start. That is expensive. I am a former mayor. Are going to do a better job more efficiently of spending my money on the project. We heard the testimony about overruns. He talked about acquisition. We can do that better. Bottom line also as you heard an array of multiple different taxes are being collected. We are suggesting there is a way among stakeholders to look at that, look at what other nations have done, are there ways to make that equitable . Of course you have to pay for it. We, as the flying public, members of congress fly more than most of the public, you pay every time you fly. What were saying is can we economize the dollar you are paying to make it go a dollar for the value and not 0. 85. When we are finished it will be something else. I know it is some they will be point delivering my chinese food. I know that. I also know that they need to see the drones, and we will need to come up with the system a system that will cost money. Thank you for your indulgence. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this important hearing on reauthorization. Having been through several of them, one of my main concerns is a lack of progress on next gen. The first bill that i helped author we worked on it. , unfortunately i think next gen is either in a stall or reverse , and that is not acceptable. Inspector general scovle, the lack of funding, has that been the major problem in not moving forward . We do not think a lack of funding has been a problem. Certainly the timing of that funding, the steady stream of funding, but that is different from a lack of funding. The congress has been generous, even exceeding the request. Specifically for next gen. I think that is the case. Somehow faa is not getting it together. In order for next gen to be implemented, everybody year has to have some benefit. The airlines, right, mr. Calio . This is clearly a point we have made over and over again. Mr. Baker . We dont see anything. And the pilots . It is the future. Governor, do you know anything in business or Business Aviation the does not look for some benefit to a new system or expenditures that they are called upon to make. Absolutely. Somehow there is a disconnect. I do not think we are headed in the right direction. We have got to turn this around. Everyone who is at the table, i or mr. Get you, paul, rinaldi. Air Traffic Controllers who use the system, it has to benefit them, to, right . Right. I saw my late and great staff director sitting back their texting. Which i told him not to do during the hearing. He and i remember leaving an aviation. We both sort of wiped our four head. I chaired that when i left as chairman, wiped my forehead, and it was a sigh of relief that there had been no major air, passenger aircraft, this is an large aircraft in large aircraft that we have had a disaster like the one we had in november of 2001 after 911. Now, we did have small commuter and regional aircraft. We worked to do commuter safety, and we did good there. I am telling you that the clock is ticking. Is going to happen. It can be an air Traffic Controller, a pilot error. There is no reason that the United States should not have the most advanced air Traffic Control system in the world, and we do not have it. Mr. Rinaldi, have you been to canada . I have. Canada is about 1 10 our size they are already placing , but they are already placing themselves. They have satellite capacity. We should be ahead of the game on this. Maybe it will take a disaster to wake people up. We cannot backslide on next gen. That is one point. In the meantime did you want to comment . Yes, sir. Congressman, i represent the pilots of canada. Although net canada is a system we should be looking at, at, i i have also had to represent pilots that have had major aircraft accidents. We have to be mindful that some airports in the northern part under that system do not have the most advanced systems. But they are adopting faster than we are and will student soon have that if they have that capability from a satellite rather than a radar based system. That is my point. We have to stay ahead. You do not want anything that is outmoded as technology. What you want is the technology that gives us the best coverage. We will probably always have to have a backup system because we have had and want to maintain the safest. I am telling you, we all need together. This group can make it happen. We have to pay for it. Some of it most of it, a lot of 8020 proposition. I would like to see that more, and i do not think there should be a war between the airlines and the airports. We need the facilities. Our airports need to be expanded to be able to accommodate the aircraft we have coming into play. One last thing. Did you all find out the ambassador to iko . Okay. There should never be an agency up in montreal that controls all of the rules, the international rules. This sets the world standards that we do not know where that is. What happened with malaysia air 370 should never happened. We should know where every aircraft is. It is the United States responsibility to take the lead in the international organization. I want all of you to write the ambassador and say we need to pass in iko a rule that no passenger aircraft can be lost, ok . That is one of the larger pictures. This should never happen again. Am i out of time . I have been out of time for some time, thank you. Just to be nice and not embarrassing one, i will submit the rest of the question later. I did want mr. Baker to address the falling number of single piston powered aircraft and number of pilots in the United States. I believe he did that in his testimony so we have that on record. With that, ms. Norton is recognized for five minutes. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Forgive me, i have a cold. I agree with mr. Mica, in the present environment it may take a catastrophes to move this along. Good thing this hearing wasnt called progress because you have had nothing but setbacks and its time you were candid with the public and this committee. Its murder flying today. It is murder. More people are trying to fly and having to be more and more cautious. Thats where we need to tell the american people. I had high hopes for nextgen because of the economic effects and our open country and because of what it means for our place in the world, but you have operated within an environment where you have had to stop major nextgen programs where the environment of 20,000 plus furloughs, half a billion dollars cut in operations, hiring for you know, somebody needs to be candid here. And tell the public what i think the gravimetric your testimony is here now. I wish we were proceeding at all. Proceed cautiously to a new system. This 2020 date is a fiction and what we need to tell the public dont we is that theyre going to have we are going to be living with the present system for the foreseeable future. Mr. Scovel, you are an Inspector General. Youre supposed to tell the truth here. Isnt that in effect what the testimony amounts to today and what the present lack of progress has meant . Theres some very tight with wickets for what . For industry and faa or. Im talking about the public size. Im sorry. I misunderstood. I am talking about on the public side. The public side has to be a partner to whatever wickets the private side is trying to run. By public if you mean the faa and what it must do in order to provide these enhanced air Traffic Control services to our National Air Space, absolutely. So, this is a system you got and what im asking you to do is to make the system we have as safe as you can, because you really cant sit there with a straight face and tell me, and tell the american public, that the way were going to get out of this is move to a new system, a system with high hopes, less delays, less environmental impact, because we are not going to do that anytime soon. Yes, captain moak. In case i gave the wrong impression, our system for our customers and pilots and crew members is the safest system in the world. Im not questioning your safety, im telling you i dont have to the way my colleagues do it. But when i do fly, i see what is happening. I cant imagine what they see. It is murder. Because more and more people want to fly in more and more crowded skies. I believe we have a safe system. I know it is, because you slow things down to make it safe. The other thing i want to add on, many of nextgen is not defined by the 2020 mandate or by adsb. Its a work in progress and many of the benefits of nextgen have already come online and thats getting missed there captain, the faa and nobody here is even willing to give us a target date for when the we can say we have now made the transition and moved to nextgen. Isnt that the case . For most programs for most programs in our country we at least have a target date, and if you dont have a target date, then it does seem to me your goal should be to keep the system we have because thats the system were going to have for some time. He didnt object to that characterization, and keep it as safe as you can with what whatever slowdown, telling the public, yes, there will be slowdowns, but you have to understand that these slowdowns are to keep you safe. It is better to have that kind of candor than to have people being angry at the airport when you tell them that they cant get someplace when we were supposed to get someplace. Im not chastising the private sector. I know who is to blame here. But i am saying now that we know what the atmosphere is like, be candid with the public so the public doesnt expect anything but slowdowns for the foreseeable future. If anybody objects to that, speak now or forever hold your peace. I cant let that stand like that. The ontime records, the improvements, the safety, thats not a characteristic of our u. S. Aviation system. We are working. Its never going to be a finite date that everything is done because it will be constantly improving. The nuanced problems were working through as a team, well always work through them. So i would say it was a mischaracterization of the u. U. S. Airline industry. Im going to recognize myself for five minutes to ask a question. I think its pretty apparent that the process doesnt work like it should. We obviously have the safest air space in the world, biggest, largest, air space in the world but when you look at mr. Englers example of at t and apple in the last seven years they have had eight phones, eight iterations. The faa is a spending 115 million on an information system, flight information system, that theyre projecting to be done in 2025, theyll be probably eight or ten more iphones out before the faa gets there. Those are the kinds of things its just apparent the process is broken. When you look back over the last three academic candidates and the 10, 11, different pieces of legislation and economictive ordered that said, lets get this done, and im sure that, as who has done some good at the faa but you can find every faa administrator saying, were moving in the right direction. Theyre moving at a snails pace, to mr. Micas point of view, we have to get these things up and running. The process doesnt work and we all, i think, apparent that the money, starting and stopping, is a huge problem so, governor engler, coming from the you all represent businesses but as a user, as somebody that looks at this and needs this air space, that need this system to work efficiently and with the benefit of how your Companies Operate in a technology world, a new governance model, how do you envision that working, not only from the process but from the funding side . I know you talked about it a little bit but i wont interrupt you and let you lay it out. Well, at least some of the thinking is to examine the stakeholders, and many of us are at the table here today. Others are not but would want to be included. And it really is a question of stakeholders coming together, and nobody has made any decisions on exactly what a funding model would look like. Thats always been a Sticking Point in the past. Thats when it gets hard, when you put money in and its been referenced here. One other member was pressing us on money. Theres a lot of money in the system, and so theres a recognition, there still are airport needs out there, and so this separating this out, thats one of the reasons some of the work we have been doing is trying to understand what funding models might look like, what options might be there, but not trying to get into that conversation because that really is my sense has been, given the size of the committee, the complexity of the issuecant you cant get all the stakeholders together we wont be successful, so thats really important. On the other side the same thing is true. The people who are putting up the funds and have interests, pilots, controllers, the commercial airlines themselves, general aviation, all will want to need a seat at the table for that. There is sort of a model that was used up in canada in terms of bringing the stakeholders together. Now, that really is only on sort of building out the system, the things, the technology. The other very key part of this never leaves the faa, is the whole the safety regulations. I made reference to you sort of have today the regulator, the decisionmaker, on at the technologies, enhanced safety, the decisionmaker on safety itself. So there is an inherent kind of conflict that exists, if you will, and what works well, i think, is some separation. The agency still has all the safety responsibility plus theyve got all the operational responsibilities, which are these captains are they have challenging jobs. You have got these manuals with technical specifications. You have to comply with how you fly, and the reason were the safest in the world, if they find a i dont know if theres a different way to deal with wind sheer, an edict goes out and pilots are retrained almost instantly on that. Controllers have a lot of technical things theyre in charge of, and the agency is way behind on some of this stuff, and frankly an agency that was focused laserlike on getting caught up there so as new technology was available, could be deployed, would be an agency that would be really working well. So i actually think, in this case, kind of realigning the responsibilities a little bit so that everybody is doing what theyre best at doing, and picking up the pace, we get to a better place for the nations air traffic system. Thank you, governor. I think you made a good point there. We need to be looking out all these other different systems around the world and how they do things. One number from that just jumped off the payment at me, we are nine times the size of the canadian air space. We spend 20 times as much in capex as they do, and from ive seen, and chairman mica has been up there, their technology is more advanced and theyre spending less money, so thats something that we need to put up there and Pay Attention to. With that, i yield five minutes to ms. Estes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And as a new member of the committee, this is one of the rare areas when i came on the commitow two years ago when i said, oh, my god, this is a triple win. Get nextgen right, were happening with safety, wont lose planes i was told be dont lose planes but now we know we do. Its better for the environment and better for communes. We dont need to scant our runways as much. We need to find a way to get this done, and seems to me there are two different issues. One is the funding and one is the timing. Anybody who wants to be delay want to the table, the free rider, theyre going to pay heavily, and that seems to be the way to engage wall street to set up the money, the federal government ought to partner, but we need to set a realistic timeframe in a very heavy incentive to apply by that time frame. That will bring the cost of the technology down, it would get it done before 2025. This is ridiculous. We should not have to wait that long. Clearly we will need more iteration, but we risk a real opportunity right now that not but thatwe behind, other countries are going to develop and sell the technology to the world and the standard, and that is foolish. We should not do that. Our citizens deserve a safety. Our communities deserve to have better for the environment. We should not be chewing up air we do not need to come and we need to did it done faster, so if anyone would like to opine as to what kind of timeframe is realistic if we can get the money together to borrow from overtime what is the time period , by which realistically we could say you have to retrofit . Congresswoman, if you are suggesting its are you talking about the Airlines Need to retrofit . Yes. Okay. Well, i think here its a very complicated question or more complicated question. We have deadlines. We have had deadlines in the past. We have made the deadlines. We have invested money. Theres 6 billion in the trust fund unallocated. We have the money. The problem lies in the processes and make sure the equipment works and making sure theres a return on the investment for the equipment. Its far more than that. Just setting a deadline i dont believe, with all due respect, will do anything. We have a deadline for 2020 on adsb and yet were not harmonized with the world. The case hasnt been made theres a return on investment for the people being forced to invest in it. Meanwhile were flying around on aircraft we have aircraft in our fleets that has equipment on it that we cant use because of procedures are not in place to use it. Its a very frustrating situation. Then what are those pieces we could to realize the benefits . Obviously were talking about these unrecognized benefits how do we incorporate that into the system so they are realized or the incentive is there such they do get realized by those who find it not be in their interest currently . So, congresswoman, we are making progress. It doesnt lend itself in the time we have here but if you go to greener skies in seattle, they concentrated on that, rotted online saves emissions, brought that online, it saves emissions, saves fuel, a safe operation, and theyre trying to replicate that all over the United States. The houston metroplex, they brought that online. Great job. Which again, i want to stress what said earlier. The airlines have trained the pilot, the controllers are trained. Were working through procedures with the controllers. The airlines have invested some the faa continues to work but, again, private Enterprise Management principles applied in the Public Sector with the faa, stabilized and consistent funding, all those things allow them to do a better job. Right now theyre working with hand tied behind their back, i believe. I think that your summation is excellent. You say how do you kind of make these pieces and sequence them to get them to work, but theres a point in there you touched on that deserves to be picked up a it bit more and that is on the procedures that captain moak just referred to and nick calio referred to, one row. The management advisory committee, unanimous, give the stakeholders more role in helping to prioritize what paroled ours need to come when so that we can get those done, because some are high value, high payoff, pretty quick return. Others have a little longer tail, and i think that kind of this is what i think the genoas talking about in terms of performance management. You would normally all of us would in our offices and our enterprises do it by order of priority. The gentleladys time has expired. Mr. Meadows, recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Scovel, let me come to you. Sitting in your exact seat we have had people come before us, from the federal aviation administration, the person in charge making tour nextgen gets implemented, and when we ask for deadlines and ask for final frames, i see sweat pop out on their brow, and really the plan to get it implemented theres not an answer, and you said it was a very tight wicket. I make the analogy its like getting a bowling ball through a wicket, and what degree of confidence, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being most confident, do you have in the faas ability to implement most of this thing and meet the target deadlines that have been reestablished, i might add. These are note first deadlines. These are multiple deadlines. On a scale of one to 10, how confident are you and would you place your job based on the rating . Thats a tall order. When i mentioned tight wickets im talking about now and 2020. What happens after that is anyones game. So were going to invest billions of dollars on anyones game or guess. Yes, but i aggrieve with but i agree with captain moak its essential, its necessary and its achievable. Its a question of enough time well, its achievable i can run a marathon, but not real likely its going to happen in the near future, too. So, from a time frame standpoint, when do we start when does the stakeholder start to get counting on our time frame so that they can make the proper investments, so the becomes guy concerns me greatly were spending billions of dollars to have equipment and training ready and yet were not doing our part on the federal government side. Well, let me just take the january 2020 mandate. Realizing everything that needs to be done there in terms of automation platform, renewal and modernization, eram. Supposed to be done in 2015. Star is supposed to be done several years after that. Datacom in 2019. The need for training for controllers and the need for enough of the fleet thats going to use the system to equip so we can have and to and testing, without the end to end testing, we do not know it will operate the way to supposed to, all of that by 2020 scale of one to ten, ten being the highest. Im less than five. And i would say probably we dont have until four and a half years from now in order to judge. We may have a year and a half, two years. By the time the whole let me shift to europe. Theyre in the middle of an atc modification as well and theyre taking a different approach, which is making sure all the stakeholders have all of their stuff and yet theyre not going to make their deadlines, either. So would you say that our approach is better than their approach . Its a softball. In terms in terms of ultimately getting what the Airline Industry and what air travelers need, is it better approach to make sure they stakeholders are equipped first, or is it better that we do what we need to be doing on the part of ground installations, et cetera . Well, ground installation is done. Which one is better . Thats a third of the equation. Right. We still have long way to go. The training and other implementation. The stakeholder so is our process or europes process better . I need you on the record to tell me which one is better. Lets see. Were going to make ours work, and its going to be done right. So, is ours better . For now, for us, we have to take into account our stakeholders, too. Sounds look youre returning for office. Im trying to avoid any kind of policy input because i know thats the committee im asking you for that. Im asking you a direct question. It would be better we get rid of the process were having and adopt theirs . Okay. By process are you referring where their emphasis is more on the stakeholders. I assume your answer is no. No, we have to have an emphasis on stakeholders. All right. I will yield back. Thank you, mr. Meadows. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. I want to first ask mr. Calio and mr. Baker, who were talking about the issue of adsb incentives for installation of those. Let me ask specifically two things. Would financial incentives be enough or and or should there be a bet year of best equipped, best served policy that the faa uses . What are your thoughts on those . From our perspective at airlines for america, the best incentive would be to provide equipment ask a process by which we can employ the equipment and see a return on investment, that there the cost would not outweigh any benefits. Nothing more specific than that. Okay, mr. Baker. I understand that we dont need a Loan Guarantee to invest in a equipment. If we know the equipment is going to be is going to work and that we can use it and get our passengers to their destinations faster and more efficiently and safer than we do now. Okay. Mr. Baker. For the general aviation marketplace were open to anything that helps lower the cost. The general aviation marketplace has been under siege for years and years, driving 40yearold aircraft. If theres a way to look at other choices between a portable device, financial instance anything that helps lower the , cost for general aviation want to consider. What are the thoughts on the best equipment, best served policy . Well, the faa is not doing the best serve. We are still on the first come, first served. Obviously were not going to put that is flying at 110 knots in front of an airbus 380 doing 170 on approach. Well move the cessna out of the way because its safe and orderly. Best equippedbest served, would work. The problem really comes, congressman, is when its mixed equipage, and if we dope have a high number of aircraft equipped, then we can have the greatest procedures in the world but have to reduce it to the lowest common denominator to continue to run a safe and efficient flow. I want to move on to another issue that maybe you to know Midway Airport is in my strict and suffered from thousands of cancelled flights after the fire at the center. Mr. Rinaldi, like to express my thanks for the hard work and protection for what was done and the work you put into keep are our system running and get the aurora facility back online. I know its a 24 7 operation and years of work were completed in less than a month, and i commend the collaborative, innovative , and diligent effort that was undertaken to remedy and manage the situation. Mr. Rinaldi, i understand they worked collaboratively in working groups to identify recommendations to keep Systems Online but there is still a fix on fail strategy in place. Im interested to learn about the collaborative efforts what recommendations have been made and whether you believe the recommendations will be adopted and will final, will nextgen mitigate emergencies in the future . Were excited to participate in with the panel with the faa and a stakeholders. Its still in its infancy stage. We put it altogether and now its in the process of the review to go to the department of transportation at this time. And additionally, looking specifically at the i know the ig is still looking the security protocol at the chicago facilities, but im interested to learn what we need do for the system as a whole. For example, the fire sprung system in aurora used water to put out the fire, and while that worked to put out the fire, im wondering whether theres a need to look to alternative suppression systems that could effectively handle fires and save lives without compromising the equipment. Are there other fixes that can be made, if you have any answer on that one . I believe the Security Panel on which we also participated its looking at all options, and theyre making a recommendation and following them up. Well be looking at what the agencys current plans are and what they intend to proceed with. So i cant say at this point. Give you a definitive answer, but its clearly a significant concern of the agency, along with the safe integration of uaf into the air space, this will have huge ramifications for the faa. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, mr. Lipinksi. I think all the members have questioned i just want to thank the oops. I always forget you, davis. Ill give you six minutes. Well, thank you. You sit in the chair, give the guy a break, and i said i wasnt going to give it back upout you see who actually gets the chair back and then he forgets me. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I just used my extra minute, too, nick. But i do want to start with mr. Calio and also mr. Baker and mr. Rinaldi a chance to answer this. You touched on the edges of the five to six billion dollar nextgen investment that the gao reported but theres little confidence, i think we have seen and heard through testimony, among the stakeholder in faas ability to implement nextgen. Where is the disconnect and what return on investment is the taxpayer seeing from this process, and mr. Calio, if you can expand a little bit more on what you have already talked about on that issue, id appreciate it. Thank you. Congressman davis, there are, as captain moak pointed out, there are benefits already been realized in certain areas. We have put in place procedures where planes get in quicker and take off faster. More clearly needs to be done, though. The return on investment will come, i think, when the we think when the procedures the business processes that captain moak referenced and governor engler addressed are put in place. Our problem is the system currently as its structured and the airlines are seeing benefits. The out decision of planets and arrivals. Texas is a big state with a a lot of aeroplanes. It is not a flip research. You still have to continue the legacy system. Mr baker. We think generally about aviation. A day close to 80 people using gps. People use ipad, you can have traffic in your computer. You see something significantly better, people adapt. To look into le that, the adaptation across the system. Get weather and traffic we would be better off. In your testimony you raise integrating us into our, many advanced economies canada have ia to successfully integrated. They have issued 1500commercial approvals, that shows the risk we need to unlock, what i think would be a rapid job creation. Reviewed other countries action and leveraged those best practices in preparing us rules . Done work on has faa to include the. I dont know. Whether we have other at faa review of nations. Happy to get back to you on that. District we need to make sure we have some idea of what of possible commercial expansion can us technology, with the news in this country. Commercial approvals in canada, it may be something that could be learned and how they see that inhabit integrate that. Responses u for your and yield back. My apologies to the detriment for overlooking him. Hour to thank all the panellist for being here today. Believe we have done some positive things down in the faa. But for 30 years in every and asian youre going to administrators say they have something good or bad. Back to the 1992 to the government allowance, if you read the report we are about the same stuff. I think we have an opportunity here to do something different, the process does not work in a way it should. We do a little here and its about power, the funding is not the. If you believe congress and the environment we are in now with the depth we have, we are not going to be able to. Look to something different, now lift to the process but the funding point of view. We have to do it together. Core group of folks, we to sit down and figure out together. This is what we are going to do. Look at the 90s, president bush got slaughtered in the house because of the not bring stakeholders to the table