Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on The Future of Air Traffic Control
The R&D Agenda Gao ID: GAO-06-778R May 17, 2006This letter responds to Congress's April 26, 2006, request that we address questions submitted for the record by Members of Congress related to the March 29, 2006, hearing entitled The Future of Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda. Our responses are based on our previous and ongoing work and our knowledge of the areas addressed by the questions.
GAO-06-778R, Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on The Future of Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-778R
entitled 'Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on the Future
of Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda' which was released on , 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
May 17, 2006:
The Honorable Ken Calvert:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics:
Committee on Science:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Responses to Questions for the Record; Hearing on The Future
of Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda:
Dear Chairman Calvert:
This letter responds to your April 26, 2006, request that we address
questions submitted for the record by Members of the Subcommittee
related to the March 29, 2006, hearing entitled The Future of Air
Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda. Our answers to your questions are
attached. Our responses are based on our previous and ongoing work and
our knowledge of the areas addressed by the questions. We prepared our
responses during May 2006 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Because our responses are based in large
part on previously issued products for which we sought and incorporated
agency comments, we did not seek agency comments on our responses to
these questions.
We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, and the Director, Joint Planning and
Development Office. We will make copies available to others on request.
This report is also available on GAO's Web site at www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss the responses,
please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Enclosure - 1:
Enclosure I:
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions for the Record:
The Future of Air Traffic Control: The R&D Agenda:
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics:
Committee on Science:
House of Representatives:
Submitted May 17, 2006:
Questions for Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
Questions for the Record Submitted by Chairman Ken Calvert:
1. Several witnesses stated that maintaining support for JPDO from its
participating agencies over the long-run was critical. What
organizational and management changes, if any, do you recommend to
enhance long-term support of JPDO?
To date, the Joint Planning and Development Office's (JPDO) current
organizational structure appears to facilitate the federal interagency
collaboration that is central to JPDO's mission. However, as the
transition to the next generation air transportation system (NGATS)
moves forward, the volume and complexity of the tasks will increase.
Consequently, it is important for JPDO to define and institutionalize
the roles and responsibilities of its partner agencies to ensure the
long-term support for planning and implementing NGATS. The
institutionalization of roles and responsibilities is especially
important since the NGATS effort will extend through eventual changes
in agency and JPDO leadership. Currently, there is no formal, long-term
agreement on the partner agencies' roles and responsibilities in
creating NGATS. According to JPDO officials, a memorandum of
understanding that would define the partner agencies' relationships was
being developed as of August 2005, but has not yet been completed.
Also important to enhancing the long-term support of JPDO are steps to
integrate the NGATS goals into partner agencies' budget processes.
Currently, JPDO is working with the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to establish a process for identifying the NGATS as a unified
program. We believe that this is a good first step to ensure that NGATS
moves ahead in a coordinated, coherent manner.
In addition, one mechanism for enhancing and sustaining federal
collaborations is to use agencies' strategic and annual performance
plans as tools for establishing complementary goals and strategies.
However, based on our initial assessment of the partner agencies'
strategic plans, we found that only the Department of Transportation
(DOT), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have incorporated the NGATS
goals into their agency-level strategic plans. Although we have not
completed our review of the partner agencies' strategic plans,
including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA)
strategic plan, more opportunities exist for integrating the NGATS
goals into the partner agencies' plans and budgets. For example, only
NASA's current reauthorization act requires the agency to align its
aviation research projects to directly support the NGATS goals. This
type of congressional action can reinforce accountability for the JPDO
collaboration by aligning agency goals and strategies with those of
NGATS and further institutionalize the NGATS goals into the partner
agencies' plans.
[Chairman Calvert]
2. What critical policy decisions must be made by the Senior Policy
Committee before the JPDO can start down a particular technology and
architecture path? For example, do decisions need to be made on the
degree to which responsibility for aircraft can be handed over to
automated systems, or whether some airplanes will be allowed to fly
using "Visual Flight Rules" instead of filing a flight plan, or how
NGATS will treat commercial aviation vs. general aviation? What
significant policy issues do you think fall into this category?
Before the JPDO can start down a particular technology and architecture
path, the Senior Policy Committee (the Committee) must first approve
the budget guidance that the JPDO provides to the partner agencies.
That document recommends specific research initiatives, technologies,
and schedules for implementation and deployment. For fiscal year 2007,
the JPDO's Integrated Product Teams (IPT) identified a number of "Jump
Start" initiatives, including putting Automatic Dependent Surveillance-
Broadcast (ADS-B) and System Wide Information Management (SWIM) on the
fast track. These initiatives were included in agency budget guidance
that was approved by the Committee. In the future, such decisions will
flow from the enterprise architecture. JPDO plans to have an early
version of the enterprise architecture available by the end of this
fiscal year, with significant IPT input.
The policy decisions suggested in the question above are among those
that the Committee could decide. For example, the Committee could
address policy issues surrounding how roles and responsibilities for
handling increased traffic may shift as a result of the increased
reliance on automation envisioned in NGATS. Concerning general
aviation, JPDO officials noted that NGATS has the potential to provide
significant benefits to this community. However, they said that it is
difficult to specify exactly what decisions the Committee would have to
make concerning general aviation. Officials said that most of these
decisions, when they occur, will be tied to the requirements of the
enterprise architecture. In any event, it is likely that decisions on
concepts and policies relating to general aviation would be made in
concert among JPDO, the Committee, and FAA to address concerns such as
visual flight rules vs. instrument flight rules. New technologies would
require testing or demonstrating for use in the national airspace
system (NAS). Also, FAA would have to start developing the regulation
for implementation at the appropriate point so that the regulation
would be available at the appropriate time.
[Chairman Calvert]
3. What are your views about the wisdom of having JPDO contract out
much of the development work for NGATS to a lead systems integrator?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of bringing in a lead systems
integrator for NGATS?
Determining whether using a lead systems integrator (LSI) would be
advantageous or disadvantageous in planning NGATS depends on a number
of considerations. According to criteria developed by the National
Academies, Committee on Systems Integration for Project Constellation,
using an LSI could:
* provide better systems integration knowledge, experience, and
capabilities;
* recruit more talented personnel and manage complex organizational and
international relationships;
* better identify and obtain advanced technologies from many sources;
* provide more experienced and disciplined project management
experience; and:
* bring greater credibility (public and political) to the project.
Determining whether the use of an LSI is the most efficient and
effective way to achieve these goals for NGATS should be a major
consideration in JPDO's decision whether to engage an LSI. However, our
work has shown that using an LSI does not guarantee success. For
example, the Department of the Army (Army) has used an LSI for the
Future Combat Systems because the program was the most significant
technology and integration challenge that it had ever undertaken.
Because of the complexity of this program, the lack of knowledgeable
personnel, and the need for more management and acquisitions
flexibility than could be obtained through normal contracting
procedures, the Army selected an LSI. However, we reported that the
program was behind schedule and over budget despite its use of an LSI.
Questions for the Record Submitted by Ranking Member Mark Udall:
1. Would a requirement--enforced by OMB--that the agencies involved in
the JPDO develop an annual, coordinated, cross-agency budget laying out
the resource allocations by agency and by JPDO-defined goal make the
JPDO planning process more credible and help overcome the intrinsic
weakness of a JPDO that doesn't actually control budgets?
Yes, we believe that an annual, coordinated, cross-agency budget
request would be beneficial in trying to realize the goals of JPDO. We
have previously stated that JPDO faces a challenge in leveraging
resources among its partner agencies because JPDO is fundamentally a
planning and coordinating body that lacks authority over the key human
and financial resources needed to continue developing plans for NGATS.
JPDO is currently working with OMB to develop a systematic means of
reviewing the partner agency budget requests so that NGATS-related
funding in each is easily identified. We plan to further explore these
budgetary issues with JPDO and OMB as part of our ongoing work, and to
report our findings later this year.
[Ranking Member Udall]
2. What do you consider to be the most important R&D challenges that
will have to be overcome if the JPDO is to successfully deliver a Next
Generation Air Transportation System?
Identifying important research and development (R&D) challenges will
depend to some extent on the development of the NGATS enterprise
architecture. However, it is already known that one important R&D
challenge that must be overcome to deliver NGATS is to fully understand
and address the human factors challenges associated with automation.
For example, using automation raises questions about the extent to
which the system will be automated and whether controllers will have
the ability to accept or reject automated commands. Additionally, the
human factors issues related to changing the workload of air traffic
controllers and pilots is critically important because NGATS envisions
a shift of some of a controller's workload to pilots. Although JPDO has
begun to model how shifts in air traffic controllers' workloads would
affect their performance, it has not yet begun to model the effect of
how this shift in workload to pilots would affect pilot performance.
According to a JPDO official, modeling the effect of changes in pilot
workload has not yet begun because JPDO has not yet identified a
suitable model for incorporation into its suite of modeling tools.
Another important challenge facing JPDO's delivery of NGATS will be
obtaining the resources necessary to complete the R&D of technologies
that NASA has initiated. With NASA's new focus on fundamental
aeronautics research, the agency does not intend to develop technology
to the level that it did in the past. JPDO will have to fill this gap
by leveraging the resources necessary to further develop, validate, and
demonstrate these technologies. We plan to explore how NASA's new focus
on fundamental aeronautics research will impact the transition to NGATS
as part of our ongoing work.
[Ranking Member Udall]
3. How well are the various agencies' R&D programs aligned with the
requirements of the NGATS? What will it take to ensure that the R&D
programs are properly aligned?
For alignment of R&D programs with the needs of NGATS, JPDO must
identify the R&D projects across partner agencies that support NGATS
and encourage the agencies to fund and develop these projects. These
efforts are already under way, as JPDO is examining the partner
agencies' R&D programs to see if they are consistent with NGATS goals.
As part of these efforts, JPDO has identified five early opportunities-
-R&D programs in the fiscal year 2007 budget that it can focus on
immediately. These programs include network-enabled operations to
strengthen national security, cooperative surveillance via ADS-B to
increase security and safety, the development of SWIM, defining NGATS
Required Total System Performance (RTSP), and aligning levels of
service to match RTSP.
The NGATS enterprise architecture, when completed, will be a key tool
that helps partner agencies align their R&D programs. Because it will
provide a blueprint for NGATS, partner agencies will better understand
what R&D is needed to allow their systems to interact with those of
other partner agencies in meeting the goals of NGATS. It will also help
private sector manufacturers align their R&D activities to support
NGATS.
[Ranking Member Udall]
4. Is the current structure and authority of the JPDO adequate to meet
the responsibilities given the Office to develop and implement the
NGATS, and if not, what changes are needed? If you think changes are
needed, how soon do they need to be made?
To date, JPDO's current organizational structure appears to facilitate
the federal interagency collaboration that is central to JPDO's
mission. However, JPDO is fundamentally a planning and coordinating
body that lacks authority over the key human and technological
resources needed to continue developing plans and system requirements
for NGATS. Consequently, the ability to continue leveraging resources
of its partner agencies will be critical to JPDO's success, especially
as partner agencies' will need to commit more resources for further
refining and implementing NGATS.
Under its current structure, JPDO has begun taking critical steps to
achieve its mission and align the resources of its partner agencies.
These steps include efforts to identify opportunities for coordinating
and leveraging partner agencies' research and development efforts,
using staff from the partner agencies to support JPDO work, and begin
aligning its partner agencies' budgets to support the NGATS. However,
JPDO could be doing more under its current structure. For example, the
institutionalization of roles and responsibilities is especially
important since the NGATS effort will extend through eventual changes
in agency and JPDO leadership. However, there is no formal, long-term
agreement on the partner agencies' roles and responsibilities in
creating NGATS.
As JPDO continues to evolve and mature as an organization, changes to
JPDO's authority and structure will need to be continuously evaluated
and considered. Officials and stakeholders have suggested several
options for changing the structure and authority of JPDO. These options
include:
* making JPDO a program office with its own budget;
* elevating the position of the JPDO director within FAA or DOT;
* using an LSI; or:
* adding a legislative requirement for partner agencies to align their
research projects with the NGATS goals.
For example, NASA's current reauthorization act requires the agency to
align its aviation research projects to directly support the NGATS
goals. This type of congressional action can reinforce accountability
for the JPDO collaboration by aligning agency goals and strategies with
those of the NGATS and further institutionalize the NGATS goals into
partner agencies' plans. However, before changes are made to JPDO's
structure and authority, the pros and cons of each of these options
should be evaluated.
[Ranking Member Udall]
5. What specific roles are human factors R&D and training playing in
the design of the NGATS, and how important are they to the overall
success of the NGATS?
JPDO officials have recognized the importance of human factors
considerations for R&D and have indicated their intention to apply
human factors throughout the planning and development phases of NGATS.
For example, as part of the planning for NGATS, JPDO has used modeling
to study how changes in the duties of air traffic controllers could
affect the workload and performance of other airport ground personnel.
The human factors issues related to shifting some workload from air
traffic controllers to pilots is also critically important. However,
JPDO has not yet begun to model the effect of this shift on pilot
performance because, according to a JPDO official, the office has not
yet identified a suitable model for incorporation into its suite of
modeling tools.
JPDO also intends to study the human factors implications of training
air traffic controllers. A JPDO official said that they have not yet
begun to assess these implications because the enterprise architecture-
-a blueprint for NGATS which will indicate the technologies to be used-
-is still being prepared. However, the transition from the current NAS
to NGATS could affect training. For example, according to a JPDO
official, it is anticipated that, during the transition period,
controllers will have to be cross-trained on both the equipment being
replaced as well as the NGATS equipment, resulting in increased
training costs.
JPDO officials have also indicated that they anticipate using human
factors considerations to plan and validate the operational concepts
during the research and development phase that have been identified for
NGATS. Human factors considerations include the development of
scenarios to use for testing new equipment as well as to explore
training needs of aviation personnel.
5a. What do you think are the most important human factors issues to be
addressed?
While JPDO officials have identified some important human factors
issues to date, additional important human factors issues include how
new procedures and technologies are introduced to controllers; what
techniques are used to train controllers; what support equipment, such
as simulators, can be introduced to aid controller training; and
whether various controller functions should be replaced by automation
or remain manual with some automated actions that support the
controller.
[Ranking Member Udall]
5b. NASA has lost a number of its human factors researchers in recent
years--what impact will that have on the ability of the JPDO to address
the key human factors issues associated with the NGATS?
We have not yet examined the contributions of NASA researchers to
JPDO's efforts on human factors. We plan to explore this issue and
include our findings in our report on JPDO to be released later this
year.
[Ranking Member Udall]
6. What is the relationship between FAA's Air Traffic Organization and
the JPDO--is it sufficiently well defined?
FAA's Air Traffic Organization (ATO) has responsibility for operating,
maintaining, and modernizing the current air traffic control system.
JPDO is responsible for planning and coordinating the broader, longer-
term transformation to NGATS. The formal relationship is that JPDO
reports to ATO's Chief Operating Officer for day-to-day management
oversight and to FAA's Administrator for national direction. At
present, this relationship is in the process of maturing. Within the
last year, ATO has reportedly modified its modernization plans to
represent the FAA portion of JPDO's plan for NGATS. This is a positive
development.
Our work has shown that collaborating agencies should work together to
define and agree on the respective roles and responsibilities,
including how the collaborative effort will be led. In JPDO's case,
there is no formalized long-term agreement with any of the partner
agencies, including FAA, on their roles and responsibilities in
creating NGATS. According to JPDO officials, a memorandum of
understanding that would define partner agency relationships was being
developed as of August 2005, but has not yet been completed.
Further definition of the roles and responsibilities between ATO and
JPDO will be particularly important, since both organizations have
responsibilities related to planning NAS modernization. JPDO's planning
must build upon the ATO's existing modernization program, while the ATO
must ensure that its ongoing modernization efforts are consistent with
JPDO's plans. ATO faces a challenge in funding the current system to
keep it up and running on a 24/7 basis while funding the transition to
NGATS.
JPDO's former director served concurrently as the ATO's Vice President
for Operations Planning, which helped with coordination between the two
organizations. However, FAA now plans to establish separate positions
for the JPDO Director and the ATO Vice President for Operations
Planning. Doing so increases the importance of establishing a clearly
defined relationship between these organizations.
[Ranking Member Udall]
7. Through what mechanisms are the views of industry being incorporated
in the JPDO planning process, and how well are those mechanisms working
thus far? What, if anything, would you recommend be done to improve the
interaction of industry with the JPDO planning process?
JPDO's mechanism for incorporating industry's views into the planning
process is the NGATS Institute (the Institute). The Institute was
created within a non-profit arm of the Aerospace Industries
Association. Its mission is to facilitate the participation of experts
from the private sector, academia, and state and local governments with
the JPDO, and to conduct special studies. To date, the Institute has
placed 197 experts on the IPTs.
The Institute is governed by a 16-member Institute Management Council
(IMC), which is broadly representative of the aviation stakeholder
community. The IMC's co-chairs, for example, are from the Air Line
Pilots Association (which represents commercial pilots) and the Air
Transport Association (which represents major commercial airlines).
Other members are from regional airline operations, business aircraft
operations, helicopter operations, and other aviation-related entities.
The Institute held its first public meeting on March 28, 2006, in
Washington, D.C. IMC board members and JPDO officials answered
questions from attendees and discussed NGATS challenges.
The Institute is also holding a series of investment analysis workshops
to collect information from industry to provide input on NGATS
programs, costs, sequence, and schedule. The first workshop, in April
2006, was for members of the commercial and business aviation
community. In May or June, a second workshop is planned for general
aviation, military, and public safety sectors. A third workshop is
planned for early July for airports and state and regional aviation
groups. JPDO plans to spend six months working with participants from
the three workshops to refine its cost estimates.
JPDO could improve the interaction of the aviation industry in its
planning process by incorporating greater industry input into JPDO's
four divisions--Enterprise Architecture, Enterprise Engineering and
Integration, Portfolio Management, and Evaluation and Analysis. This
could include seeking the expertise of industry experts to work
collaboratively to develop the operational concepts and performance
requirements that will make up JPDO's enterprise architecture. In
addition, we believe that producing tangible benefits early on will be
a key factor in sustaining the involvement of industry stakeholders.
[Ranking Member Udall]
8. Are there any technology transfer issues that need to be addressed?
Will NASA, for example, support development activities to the point
where industry will pick up advanced development needed for deployment
of key technologies?
NASA does not plan to support technology development to the point where
industry is willing to step in. NASA plans to focus on fundamental
research and then turn work over to FAA for further development. While
a NASA official noted that developing technology to higher levels
before industry picks it up does not necessarily guarantee success, a
draft report from FAA's Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory
Committee (REDAC) points out that placing a greater reliance on FAA to
perform the further R&D (heretofore performed by NASA) would require
FAA to establish the infrastructure needed to perform this work. REDAC
concluded that such developments would delay NGATS implementation--
probably by five years. Participants at JPDO's recent NGATS Investment
Analysis Workshop, which included representatives from commercial
airlines, business aviation, and aviation equipment supply industry,
said that industry has no interest in filling this gap due to the risk
and lack of profit opportunity. We are currently evaluating whether
NASA's reorientation of its aeronautics program to fundamental research
leaves a gap in the technology transfer process.
Question for the Record Submitted by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee:
1. What is the reason for the lack of participation of the air traffic
controllers in the activities of the JPDO, and what is the impact of
their lack of participation?
Our research showed that the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association (NATCA) initially assigned a controller to JPDO as part of
its liaison program with the FAA. On June 28, 2005, FAA notified NATCA
that it was terminating the liaison assignments effective July 29,
2005, citing budget constraints and the implementation of the ATO. The
controller who had been acting as the liaison within JPDO's Agile Air
Traffic System IPT was among the controllers who returned to his
facility. Since that time, no active controller has participated in the
NGATS planning effort of JPDO.
At a more senior level, in May 2005, NATCA President John Carr sought
and was given a seat on the IMC, which oversees the policy and
recommendations of the NGATS Institute. The Institute itself is the
mechanism for incorporating the views of stakeholders from private
industry, state and local governments, and academia into the work of
JPDO. Mr. Carr subsequently notified the IMC that he could not attend
the meetings. On December 14, 2005, he was notified by the IMC that he
had been removed for lack of attendance at the IMC's meetings.
According to JPDO officials, the IMC has left a seat open in hopes that
the controllers will participate in NGATS after a new labor-management
agreement between NATCA and FAA has been settled.
We believe that adequate stakeholder participation in the planning and
development of NGATS is critical. In particular, the participation of
current air traffic controllers is important because NGATS will likely
involve major technological and operational changes that will affect
their work. Our work on FAA's current air traffic control modernization
program has shown that without early and continuing stakeholder input,
costly rework and delays can occur late in system development.
Similarly, the input of active controllers on JPDO's planned research-
-especially on how controllers interact with pilots and air traffic
systems in a highly automated environment--can help to identify
potential safety issues early, before costly changes become necessary.
Controllers' input could also inform JPDO's analyses of issues such as
timeliness, cost-effectiveness, and the safe transformation of the
nation's air traffic control system.
Questions for the Record Submitted by Representative Jim Costa:
1. Does the JPDO believe that the Next Generation Air Transportation
System (NGATS) will be able to handle three times today's traffic if
the nation's major airports are not modernized as well?
JPDO will have to consider several issues related to airport capacity.
JPDO's Evaluation and Analysis Division has modeled the capacity of the
national airspace system (NAS) and found that the 35 largest airports
will be a critical factor in limiting the capacity of the NAS as they
reach their saturation points. JPDO models indicate that capacity at
almost half of these 35 airports will be limited.
While JPDO expects to add runways at some of these large airports and
increase the use of nearby secondary airports, JPDO anticipates that
this solution still leaves airport capacity 12 percent below that
needed to accommodate a three-fold increase. Moreover, increased use of
secondary airports could raise environmental and infrastructure issues.
For example, local residents could object to increased noise, and
travelers could have concerns about transportation to and from these
airports.
JPDO's Airport IPT has been considering how airport capacity can be
expanded. While JPDO and FAA are integrating JPDO's NGATS plan and
FAA's Operational Evolution Plan into one plan, an official told us
that the ability of JPDO to enhance airport capacity is still limited
because enhancement decisions are made at the state and local level.
The official also noted that JPDO cannot channel federal funds from the
Airport Improvement Program to airports where capacity expansion is
most needed.
[Representative Costa]
2. How will the NGATS be able to mitigate the impact severe weather has
on the system?
The NGATS will never be able to completely address the impact of severe
weather on the NAS, but could mitigate the impact. Currently, FAA holds
daily conference calls to attempt to manage the flow of air traffic
during the spring and summer thunderstorm season, but those efforts are
hampered by inconsistent data and forecasts. Fast moving thunderstorms,
which are difficult to predict with the required precision to support
aviation operations, can needlessly ground aircraft thousands of miles
away resulting in flight delays and cancellations. JPDO estimates that
60 percent of weather delays are potentially avoidable.
Although in NGATS, aircraft will still need to navigate around the most
severe weather events, JPDO expects that NGATS will be able to better
manage the problem that severe weather poses to the flow of air
traffic. To this end, JPDO and its partner agencies are undertaking
several initiatives. For example, JPDO's Evaluation and Analysis
division is developing computer models to forecast the results of
storms to show how they would affect capacity around an airport. The
Weather IPT is studying aircraft systems that would help reduce the
effects of turbulence on the aircraft and passengers. The Department of
Defense, FAA, NASA, and NOAA are working to combine an array of weather
data into one real-time weather picture by using data from tens of
thousands of global weather observations and sensor reports from
ground, air, and space-based sources. The expectation is that every
aircraft will become a node in the NGATS network, thereby ensuring that
all users of the system have access to the same sensory-rich
information. Sensors will help produce computerized forecasts that will
improve forecasting, thereby providing more usable airspace around
storms.
[Representative Costa]
3. Keeping in mind that nearly all of today's delays are due to severe
weather, runway limitations, and over scheduling: Is it reasonable for
us to believe that the billions of dollars the JPDO's proposals are
sure to cost in the implementation of the NGATS will solve the delay
problems we already face today?
It is doubtful that JPDO's efforts will completely eliminate delays,
especially when they are weather-related, but we and others have
reported that maintaining the status quo will result in gridlock and
significant losses to the nation's economy if airspace demand triples
by 2025. JPDO is seeking a variety of solutions to increase capacity
and efficiency throughout the system.
As noted in the NGATS Integrated Plan, there has never been a
transformation effort similar to this one with as many stakeholders and
as broad in scope. Through collaboration and new technologies, JPDO
hopes to meet the challenge of projected demand that will soon surpass
the current system's capacity. This involves an entirely new approach-
-one that uses modern communication technologies, advanced computers,
precision plotting through the global positioning system (GPS), and
modern computer-based decision-assistance programs. For example, JPDO
is developing more precise ways to manage the impact of bad weather.
Through the Weather IPT, JPDO is employing extensive computer modeling
to develop better predictive forecasts to help pilots avoid bad
weather. Improvements in forecasts will allow pilots and controllers to
more precisely pinpoint severe weather.
In addition, FAA is revamping its Operational Evolution Plan to enhance
capacity at the nation's 35 largest airports so that its scope and time
frames for accomplishments are more consistent with JPDO's. To maximize
runway usage, JPDO is planning to build on FAA programs that permit
planes to land on some parallel runways in low visibility conditions.
Low visibility currently eliminates the use of parallel approaches and
landings at some airports, which reduces capacity.
Some airports present unique challenges. For example, LaGuardia cannot
build more runways due to space constraints. For such airports, JPDO is
considering administrative options, such as limiting the number of
takeoffs and landings at peak hours, or permitting only certain types
of aircraft to land there. JPDO is also considering market-based
options, such as charging a premium to land during peak usage time.
[Representative Costa]
4. What does the JPDO see as the most urgent problem that needs to be
addressed in the near future, not 25 years down the road?
Several near-term challenges facing the NGATS effort were identified by
JPDO officials and other participants in a recent public meeting of the
NGATS Institute. A number of participants mentioned that development of
a cost estimate for NGATS is critical, since Congress needs to
understand what it will take to fund NGATS. Another challenge
identified was institutionalizing the collaborative processes
established by JPDO. Given the 2025 time frame and the complexity of
the effort, it is important that JPDO be able to withstand changes in
staffing and administrations. Institutionalizing the collaborative
process in the short term will strengthen the ability to achieve
success in the long term.
Another near-term challenge identified by a meeting participant was the
need to effectively communicate the importance of the transition from
the current system to NGATS. An NGATS official noted that the American
public needs to be educated about the effects of not going forward with
this transition. Raising the awareness and support of policy makers
about NGATS now, while it is in the planning stages, could lead to a
more proactive and cost-effective transition in the long run.
One challenge--establishing the credibility of the NGATS effort--was
mentioned at the public meeting as well as at an expert panel that we
conducted in March 2006 to discuss JPDO and NGATS. As we have
previously stated, although FAA is now doing a better job of meeting
milestones with its major air traffic control acquisition programs,
earlier attempts at modernizing the NAS encountered many difficulties.
JPDO will need to show nonfederal stakeholders that the NGATS effort,
while complex, is moving forward and has the commitment of the partner
agencies behind it. Establishing the federal government's commitment to
NGATS should help JPDO to maintain the interest and enthusiasm of
nonfederal stakeholders who are participating on a pro bono basis in
the NGATS effort.
(540127):
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
