[Senate Hearing 110-1150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1150
NOMINATIONS TO THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-202 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman
Virginia JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director
Christine D. Kurth, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel
Paul Nagle, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 7, 2008................................. 1
Statement of Senator Boxer....................................... 4
Letter, dated January 22, 2008, to Hon. Mary Peters,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation............... 4
Article, dated January 22, 2008, from The San Diego Union-
Tribune entitled ``FAA Faults tower for Lindbergh
incursion''................................................ 28
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 38
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 7
Statement of Senator McCaskill................................... 40
Statement of Senator Rockefeller................................. 24
Statement of Senator Smith....................................... 5
Statement of Senator Snowe....................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 3
Prepared statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator
from Texas................................................. 9
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 23
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 8
Witnesses
Gros, Simon Charles, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation........ 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Biographical information..................................... 19
LoBiondo, Hon. Frank A., U.S. Representative from New Jersey..... 1
Sturgell, Hon. Robert A., Nominee to be Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation..... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Biographical information..................................... 12
Appendix
Letter, dated February 5, 2008, to Hon. Daniel Inouye, from Bill
Connors, Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer,
National Business Travel Association........................... 52
Letter, dated February 6, 2008, to Hon. Daniel K. Inouye and Hon.
Ted Stevens, from James C. May, President and CEO, Air
Transport Association of America, Inc.......................... 51
Rockefeller IV, Hon. John D., U.S. Senator from West Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 51
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Robert A.
Sturgell by:
Hon. Barbara Boxer........................................... 67
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 69
Hon. Thomas R. Carper........................................ 78
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan......................................... 64
Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison.................................... 81
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye........................................ 52
Hon. John F. Kerry........................................... 62
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg..................................... 71
NOMINATIONS TO THE FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AND THE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
The Chairman. I am pleased this morning to introduce the
Honorable Frank LoBiondo, the United States Representative from
the State of New Jersey. Congressman?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. LoBIONDO,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY
Representative LoBiondo. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify
before you this morning.
I want to thank you for considering Simon Gros for the
appointment. I wanted to tell you that I have known Simon's mom
and dad probably for more than 25 years, and I have known Simon
for more than 10 years. I am very proud to say that he is a
native of south Jersey. I represent New Jersey's Second
Congressional District. We cover about a third of the state
geographically.
Simon was born and raised in Brigantine, New Jersey. He
first came to me when he was at the University of Maryland and
asked to be an intern. It was pretty clear that Simon was a
pretty special individual at that time. A lot of interns, I am
sure you have seen over the years, come and go. Simon
demonstrated a great deal of energy and enthusiasm coming in,
looking for more and extra work all the time.
And after he finished school, I was rather surprised, but
he came and asked for a full-time position in the office. We
brought him on as Staff Assistant, with him understanding this
was a pretty low-level entry. But he worked his way up,
continued to show that same energy and enthusiasm all through
his time with me, worked into a number of various positions in
the office.
Determined that he was going to improve himself, he then
enrolled in law school as he continued to work for me. But at a
certain point, he came to me and said that he wanted to move
into the private sector. I told him I understood and very
reluctantly accepted him leaving the office because he is one
of those rare individuals you can count on to do things the
right way the first time.
Simon continued to work on his educational process,
continued to work hard in the private sector, and he always had
an interest in transportation issues and found himself with the
Department of Transportation. He quickly moved to the position
of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. And in
a short time at the DOT, Simon has demonstrated what I knew all
along, that is, highest levels of professionalism and
commitment to public service.
He has continued to serve with distinction. He has worked
closely with folks from both sides of the aisle, very
accurately portraying the issues as they are presented. I have
found him to be very direct, something that in our business we
value a great deal.
So it is with a great deal of enthusiasm that I come before
you today in recommending Simon Gros for the position and would
hope that the Committee favorably considers it. And I thank you
very much. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Congressman. I am
certain your friend Simon is very pleased.
May I now suggest Mr. Sturgell and Mr. Gros join us at the
table?
Congressman I thank you for your presence here.
Before we proceed, Mr. Sturgell, would you care to
introduce your family? I am certain they are here.
Mr. Sturgell. I would, Mr. Chairman. Today, I have with me
some very special people--my mother, Barbara; my wife, Lynn; my
sister, Sharon; and a good friend of ours, Kim Lee, an American
Airlines pilot. I appreciate that.
The Chairman. Mr. Gros?
Mr. Gros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
introduce my wife, Natalie; my mother, Barbara; my grandmother,
Fran; my father, Roger; my mother-in-law, Louise; and my
stepfather-in-law, Sandy Gellis, in the back there.
Thank you.
The Chairman. You have a brigade here.
The Federal Aviation Administration requires strong
leadership to improve its safety record and to address several
significant challenges currently before the agency. Congestion
and flight delays have grown to record levels over the past
year, and I think all of us agree that the FAA must take
immediate action to resolve these problems before the system
becomes overwhelmed and we find ourselves in gridlock.
Mr. Sturgell, these are just some of the challenges you
will face, if confirmed. The FAA must begin modernizing the air
traffic control system in earnest. Although some modernization
efforts are underway, the agency needs to make substantial
progress over the next few years to ensure our air traffic has
the capacity to meet rapidly growing demand. In addition, the
FAA must continue its essential work on improving the safety of
air travel.
The relationship you have with your workforce is also
critical. Effective air traffic control is central to the FAA's
success, and I am concerned about morale problems among some of
the employees. So I would very much like to hear your views on
this matter and to hear about any steps you intend to take that
would promote a positive and fulfilling workplace environment
at the FAA.
Mr. Sturgell, I must stress to you the importance of having
an FAA Administrator who is willing to communicate directly
with Congress and who will work aggressively to move the agency
forward in this critical period. Time is short. Unfortunately,
funding is tight, and the next FAA Administrator must oversee
the modernization of the National Airspace System.
This Committee and the Congress expect you to work closely
with us in addressing the immediate and the long-term issues
facing the agency and to be an effective advocate for the best
path forward with both the White House and the Legislative
branch.
With respect to the Office of Governmental Affairs, Mr.
Gros, if confirmed, you will be responsible for representing
the Department of Transportation in its dealings with Congress
and working closely with Members and staff on legislative
efforts. This is an essential mission.
In addition to reauthorizing the FAA, there are a number of
important transportation issues that the DOT and Congress must
address in the coming year. To name a few, we must enact
Amtrak, rail safety legislation, strengthen truck safety, and
fully implement the important pipeline safety legislation
recently enacted by Congress. A good working relationship
between Congress and DOT is vital if we are going to find
solutions to these challenges and improve the quality of our
Nation's transportation systems.
And so, on behalf of the Committee, I thank both of you for
appearing before us today and thank both of you for your
commitment to public service. And should you be confirmed, I
look forward to working with each of you.
Before proceeding, the Vice Chairman of the Committee,
Senator Stevens?
STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you,
Senator Boxer. I am sorry to be a little late.
I think these are two very important positions at the
Department of Transportation, and I look forward to the hearing
today. Above all, aviation is more important to our state than
any state in the Union. It is literally the lifeblood of
Alaska. Seventy percent of our cities in our state can be
reached only by air year round. They might have a boat from
time to time, but year-round transportation is air
transportation.
It is important that the FAA maintain knowledge of Alaska,
and Mr. Sturgell, I am a little concerned about the retention
of our people in the FAA in Alaska. The retention seems to be a
very difficult thing. Attrition is very high. And because of
our unique terrain and this enormous aviation community, it is
essential that we have people up there who understand the state
and understand the weather in the state.
So I look forward to having the chance to discuss this with
you, and I want to work with the Chairman and both of you, when
you are confirmed, and try to see if we can do our best to
improve the aviation system of our country.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I thank you very much.
Senator Boxer?
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
important hearing. Welcome, sir.
As a frequent flyer between California and Washington, as
in well more than a million miles since I came to Congress, I
know firsthand the challenges the flying public faces when they
travel. The Department of Transportation confirmed on Tuesday
what airline passengers have known all year, that 2007 was the
second-worst year on record for airline delays.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important--I just want to get
your attention for a second--that the DOT confirmed on Tuesday,
that 2007 was the second-worst year on record for airline
delays. I just think it is something that we really need to
talk to you about what your ideas might be to change it. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
I think Americans are frustrated, and they want to know
what the FAA, the airlines, and the Congress are going to do to
alleviate the delays and keep our skies safe. Senator Snowe and
I wrote the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights Act of 2007, which
would require airlines to give passengers adequate food, water,
and facilities when planes are delayed on the tarmac and also a
timetable to allow passengers to deplane if they choose to do
so and if the pilot deems it safe.
As you know, with the help of this Committee, we were able
to include this language in the Senate FAA reauthorization
bill, and I hope to work to strengthen that language when it
comes to the floor.
I thank the FAA for recognizing the need for our Passenger
Bill of Rights by issuing a proposed rulemaking. But I do have
some concerns. I am told that FAA is considering preempting
state laws, such as New York's or other efforts currently under
consideration in several states. In addition, DOT rules should
set minimum standards for airline contingency plans for food,
water, and deplaning. And we have sent a letter to you, to the
FAA--Senator Snowe and I--very recently, and I would like to
ask unanimous consent to place that in the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
United States Senate
Washington, DC, January 22, 2008
Hon. Mary Peters,
Secretary,
Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Peters:
We are pleased that the Department of Transportation (DOT) has
turned its attention toward addressing airline delays and service, but
we have serious concerns about several of the rules proposed by your
Department in Docket No. DOT-OST-2007-0022.
As the DOT moves forward with this rulemaking, we urge you to set
minimum standards for the contingency plans and ask the DOT to both
review and approve the plans proposed by the airlines. These minimum
standards should not only include necessary food and water, but also
passengers' right to safely deplane if they have spent more than 3
hours on the tarmac either when arriving at, departing from, or being
diverted to an airport.
Allowing airlines to design their contingency plans without the
guidance of minimum standards or even a review by the DOT renders this
rule completely ineffective. As noted by your own Inspector General,
many of the airlines previously signed a voluntary Airline Customer
Service Commitment in 1999 and incorporated many of those requirements
in their contracts of carriage. Despite those efforts, little has
changed and it is clear that this system of voluntary commitments is
not enough to prevent the severe delays and unconscionable conditions
that too many air travelers have recently endured.
We applaud the efforts of states to protect the healthy and safety
of passengers who travel through their airports. It is important that
any rule established by the DOT should not preempt state efforts such
as the law recently passed in New York, or those measures currently
under consideration in California, Rhode Island, Washington and other
states.
Lastly, we support the proposals to improve communication between
the airlines and their customers, and require airlines to track and
provide consumers with more information about the past performance of
flights and their carriers. Better information will help consumers make
an educated choice when purchasing their ticket, and provides airlines
an incentive to compete on the quality of their service as well as
price.
We look forward to working with you and other officers in the
Department of Transportation on these important issues.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senator.
Olympia Snowe,
U.S. Senator.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. So that is issue number one.
I am very concerned about the fact that the air traffic
controllers in my state are telling me that FAA simply doesn't
grasp the full implications of the increasing number of air
traffic controller retirements across the Nation. Controllers
tell me that a wave of retirements, dispute over pay,
controller fatigue, excessive overtime hours, training of new
hires, and unsuitable working conditions in the towers are
creating a safety hazard on the ground and in the air for the
passengers.
This is very serious, I think, to all of us, and we look
forward to hearing your response with your plans to deal with
this. First of all, do you agree with this assessment? And
second of all, what would you do to help alleviate this
problem?
So I do look forward to speaking with you about these and
other matters. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Smith?
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON H. SMITH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Stevens, for this important hearing.
It is quite obvious that our Nation's aviation system is in
serious need of an overhaul. The economic impact of delays in
the aviation industry have a negative impact on our economy. I
commend the FAA for their safety record. Flying has never been
safer. But safety aside, flying in this country is reaching
appalling levels of difficulty.
Data released this week, as Senator Boxer just noted, 2007
was one of the worst years for commercial flights in this
country. A near record number of flights were delayed. More
bags were lost, and there were more customer complaints than in
2006 and the most since the year 2000. That data alone is all
we need to move expeditiously on the FAA reauthorization bill
stuck in the Senate.
The FAA legislation passed by this Committee does include a
$25 user fee. I still have difficulty with it, and it is
bogging down that bill. I do not agree with the premise that we
have to create a new bureaucratic system of fee collection to
pay for the improvements to the air traffic control system. I
see no reason why we cannot use the current payment system of
fuel and excise taxes to fund the FAA.
The money needed to pay for the NextGen system can be
collected through the current financing structure much more
simply, much less expensively. I am looking forward to hearing
Mr. Sturgell's explanation for why we cannot use the current
system to pay for NextGen Air Transportation System.
The implementation of the NextGen system is an enormous
task. I am not convinced the FAA has the capability to
implement a system that requires the technological change
currently proposed. The FAA does not have the best track record
when it comes to implementing new technological systems.
I am also concerned about the FAA's reliance on technology
for the NextGen system that is not available and may not be
available when needed. I have yet to hear when key system
technological capabilities will be delivered, how much capacity
will be added to the system, and how much of the old system
will be retained as a backup.
NextGen is not expected to become fully operational until
at least 10 years from now. I am interested in learning what we
can do to improve our Nation's airways between now and then.
Steps must be taken to reduce congestion between now and then.
I am concerned that when we discuss NextGen, no one talks
about the need for more capacity on the ground. We could and
should have the best radar system in the world. But without
places to land and gates to receive those planes, we will still
have those same problems on the ground as in the sky.
Mr. Sturgell, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on
improving capacity at our airports and whether there is
anything we can be doing in concert with NextGen to expand the
airports' capability. All of our major airports are in very
urban areas with no growth. How do we work around this gridlock
on the ground to improve gate areas and expand and build new
runways?
There are a number of challenges before you, sir, and I
look forward to your testimony. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an
important hearing, and transportation shapes life in America,
in my view. It was aviation that enabled a coast-to-coast
development that made us the great Nation that we are today.
And if these nominees are confirmed, their whole responsibility
is to shape our Nation's transportation future on the rails,
the highways, and in the sky, and thusly, we have created a
critical obligation to be as thorough as we can in the
selection of these government leaders.
I first want to apologize to Congressman LoBiondo for not
having been here to welcome him. He has shown a commitment to
constant improvement of our transportation infrastructure. We
serve well together.
And I know that he came to introduce Simon Gros, who is
nominated to be Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs
for DOT. I have worked with Mr. Gros since he has been with the
Department of Transportation and noted his professionalism and
diligence, and I believe the Committee should confirm his
nomination.
Mr. Sturgell, someone with broad aviation experience, has
been nominated for the highest post at FAA. And while he is
well qualified with knowledge of aviation and is being selected
as the country's top aviation watchdog, questions are going to
be raised about the decisions that Mr. Sturgell made and
implemented at the FAA. These decisions seemed to have missed
what FAA needs most--leadership and a new perspective on how to
continue to improve safety, which has been terrific. But so has
the volume of traffic expansion and it provides new problems,
while providing reliability in our aviation system.
As the FAA's Deputy Administrator for the past 5 years, Mr.
Sturgell has helped design the policies that have proven
misguided and put our aviation system in its current troubled
state. Now, I want to be clear. I trust the men and women who
do the work to keep our planes flying safely each day--our
pilots, flight attendants, our mechanics, our ramp workers, our
air traffic controllers, safety inspectors, and the other
professionals who we rely upon each day to keep more than two
million flyers, travelers safe.
They are among the top transportation professionals in the
world. But the Bush Administration policies have inhibited the
ability of these hard-working professionals to do their best by
failing to meet some of their basic needs. Our Nation's air
traffic controllers are overworked and understaffed, and the
FAA is refusing to negotiate in good faith to improve, or to at
least discuss, their working conditions and their income.
Sixty-hour work weeks are not uncommon in the retail
business and the manufacturing industry. But that is far above
the standard that should be in place for the aviation industry
and can lead to fatigue, tired eyes in our skies. In addition,
the FAA continues to allow dangerous and unnecessary safety
risks on our runways, and that is confirmed in the GAO report
we have with us.
Working with the Government Accountability Office, we have
obtained this report which shows that quick actions of pilots
and controllers are sometimes the only things that prevent many
catastrophic accidents from happening each year. I hope this
Committee takes a hard look at this report since FAA has not.
Further, the Bush Administration's failures have led to one
of the worst years ever for flight delays, as was discussed by
our colleague earlier. Only 73 percent of flights arrived on
time last year.
Last, the FAA is forcing hundreds of thousands of residents
who live in the New Jersey and New York region to deal with
more jet noise as it re-routes planes over our homes, schools,
and communities. Aside from the decreased quality of life, we
are already hearing about confusion over the new routes by
pilots and controllers, which could lead to alarming
consequences.
Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that I do not believe that
President Bush's choice for FAA Administrator is the right
choice. The results at FAA do not support this nomination,
which is an opinion held by many Senators. It is not the way to
bring our aviation system up to the levels of reliability and
efficiency that we need. It is not good for the public
interest. It is not good for our region. It is not the safest
way to operate this vital part of our transportation network.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Senator.
This morning, the Commerce Committee has the great
privilege and honor of presenting a new member. He is the
gentleman from Mississippi, the Honorable Roger Wicker.
Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER F. WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if I
might take this opportunity to congratulate you on taking your
15,000th vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
The Chairman. I am not that old.
[Laughter.]
Senator Wicker. There were distinguished Members of the
Senate who told that for the truth yesterday, and the remarks
were very generous and well deserved. And it is a pleasure to
be here.
I am told that this is a time for an opening statement. I
have another Committee to attend, and I am learning the ropes
around here. So if I might, let me just also apologize for
being a few moments late. I was at the National Prayer
Breakfast, and the bus just arrived back at Capitol Hill.
I want to congratulate the two nominees and to say that I
read their testimony with interest. I wish both of you well,
and I will simply, by way of opening statement, express my hope
that they will maintain an interest in the small communities of
the United States that serve rural America.
The FAA Contract Tower Program continues to be one of the
most successful and cost-effective FAA-industry partnerships,
as validated numerous times by the Department of Transportation
Inspector General. There are seven FAA contract towers in my
state of Mississippi alone, and the bottom line is that without
this program, many of these smaller airports would not be
benefiting from the important safety benefits that control
towers provide the flying public.
So I would hope that, if confirmed by the Senate, Mr.
Chairman, these two witnesses will continue to maintain as a
top priority the 249 smaller airports in America that benefit
from this program.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Senator.
And now, may I recognize the Vice Chairman?
Senator Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I have been informed that
Senator Hutchison has a conflict this morning. She is the
ranking Republican on the Subcommittee for Aviation, and she
wants to have me voice her support for these two nominations
and hope that we will have a chance for early confirmation.
She wants to submit a statement for the record, and I ask
that that be reserved.
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hutchison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, U.S. Senator from
Texas
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, thank you for scheduling
the nomination hearing today. It is important we quickly provide a
stable leadership environment at the FAA. I support both Mr. Sturgell
and Mr. Gros' nomination and I look forward to working with them as we
move forward on FAA Reauthorization and other transportation
priorities.
I am excited to start working with my good friend and colleague
Sen. Rockefeller in my new capacity as Aviation Subcommittee Ranking
Member. We have an important year and several challenges ahead of us,
but it will be essential to have a strong leadership team in place at
the FAA in order achieve our goals of an extension and finalized FAA
Reauthorization bill.
Mr. Sturgell is clearly qualified to be Administrator based on his
vast aviation background and his institutional knowledge of the Agency.
I believe it is paramount Congress provide the FAA with a strong and
knowledgeable leader to oversee and motivate the more than 45,000 FAA
employees. As he has shown through his time as Acting Administrator and
Deputy Administrator, Mr. Sturgell has the skills to help improve our
safety system and to work the Agency through a much needed
modernization process.
Again, thank you for moving forward with these nominations. I look
forward to their timely confirmation.
The Chairman. And now, I am pleased to call upon Mr.
Sturgell.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. STURGELL, NOMINEE TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Sturgell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of
addressing you, Senator Stevens, and the Members of this
Committee as the nominee for the position of Administrator for
the Federal Aviation Administration. Let me just say from the
outset that I reaffirm the pledge I made when I took my oath of
office to serve my country, to uphold the principles of the
Constitution, and to do my duty to the best of my ability. It
is a commitment I renew each and every day at the FAA.
As the steward of the largest, most efficient, and most
complex airspace system in the world, I will work tirelessly to
improve and enhance safety and efficiency in order to serve the
millions of people who place their trust in us and who depend
on the system for their livelihoods. Above all, they demand
safety, and that is what we deliver.
I am proud to have helped advance that safety record
throughout my professional career. The United States leads the
world in setting the highest standards of safety for the
aviation industry, and I pledge to keep it that way. I must be
candid. I have been asked fairly pointedly by several people
about why I want to be considered for this position. The answer
for me is simple. It is about the mission.
I am proud to serve with the men and women of the FAA, who
set and meet the highest standards of excellence. Following the
attacks of 9/11, I sought public service, first with the
National Transportation Safety Board and then with the FAA. For
me, like so many others, it was personal.
At the FAA, I have never side-stepped a hard issue or a
tough call. During the last 5 years, the FAA has learned to
manage better and smarter. We have implemented financial
management strategies that better serve the taxpayer while
maintaining the standard of excellence.
Our capital programs are on track. We have had seven clean
audits in a row, and we have been taken off the GAO's high-risk
list for financial management. In terms of safety and
regulatory authority, the FAA is the international gold
standard. The men and women of the FAA have made it that way,
and I thank them for their efforts.
As you know, I am working hard to keep things moving. As
the entire airline industry has suffered constraints, as
passenger demands rise, and as our workforce ages, we have
responded with a massive recruitment and training initiative.
We have created retention and job enhancement strategies, and a
new workforce is being built.
We had nearly 2,000 applications in less than a week when a
new bid recently went out for air traffic controllers. But we
are also focusing on our safety inspectors and other critical
safety positions. We are addressing those issues that continue
to impact travelers--delays, uncertainty, cancellations. Only
through the cooperation of all the parties involved can we find
the real solutions.
And as you have seen by our willingness to work in our most
congested corridors recently to find and implement solutions,
we are beginning to make headway. System-wide, we have
introduced new technologies, ranging from satellites to runway
lights, from simulators to the next generation of navigation
and safety equipment that will bring the Nation's airspace
safely into the future.
If confirmed, I will continue working with our
stakeholders, my colleagues at the Department of
Transportation, and, of course, the Congress to continuously
improve the performance of the FAA.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is an honor for me to serve this
great Nation. From my days at Top Gun to my tenure with the
airlines and now here before you, I continue to share your
pride at what this country stands for. You have my solemn
promise that, if confirmed, I will uphold the best interests of
the United States of America and its people at all times.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I would be happy to answer any
questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Sturgell follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert A. Sturgell, Nominee to be
Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation
Thank you, Chairman Inouye, for the privilege of addressing you,
Senator Stevens, and the Members of this Committee as the nominee for
the position of Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Before I begin, it's my profound pleasure to introduce three very
special people, my wife, Lynn, and my parents, Bill and Barbara
Sturgell. I'm blessed to have come from wonderful parents and have a
loving wife by my side to provide me with such a solid foundation and
support. I'm proud to have them here with me today and feel that
support just as I've felt it every day of my life.
Let me say from the outset that I reaffirm the pledge I made when I
took my oath of office--to serve my country, to uphold the principles
of fairness and righteousness as outlined in the Constitution, and to
do my duty to the best of my ability.
It is a commitment I renew each and every day at the FAA, that as
the steward of the largest, most efficient and most complex airspace
system in the world, I will work tirelessly to improve and enhance
safety and efficiency in order to serve the millions of people who
place in us their trust, who depend on the system for their
livelihoods, the movement of goods, and as the safest mode of
transportation on earth.
I am proud to have helped advance that safety record throughout my
career. The United States leads the world in setting the highest
standards of safety for the aviation industry, and I pledge to keep it
that way.
I must be candid: I've been asked fairly pointedly by several
people on the Hill about why I want to spend five more years at the
FAA. The answer is simple. I love my job. I'm proud to serve with the
men and women of the FAA who set and meet the highest standards of
excellence and I love the aviation business from the inside out.
I've had to make hard choices, sometimes unpopular choices during
my tenure with the FAA. But, we've learned to manage better and leaner.
We've implemented financial management strategies that better serve the
taxpayer while maintaining the standard of excellence under which we
operate.
Our capital programs are on track, we've had seven clean audits in
a row, and we've been taken off the GAO's high-risk list for financial
management. My goal is simply to have the FAA viewed as the gold
standard, and I want to thank the men and women of the FAA for their
hard work and dedication to excellence.
As the entire airline industry has suffered constraints, as
passenger demands have fluctuated, as our workforce ages, we've
responded with a massive recruitment and training initiative, we have
been innovative in crafting retention and job enhancement strategies.
The new workforce is being built. We had 1,800 applications in less
than a week when a new bid went out for air traffic controllers. Now,
we have to execute on the training.
We are also addressing those issues that continue to impact
travelers. Delays, uncertainty, cancellations, only through the
cooperation of all parties involved can we find real solutions. And as
you've recently seen by our willingness to work in our most congested
corridors, to find and implement solutions, we are beginning to make
real headway.
System wide, we've introduced new technologies ranging from
satellites to runway lights, from simulators to the next generation of
navigation and safety equipment that will bring the Nation's airspace
roaring into the future and will impact how safely, quickly, and
smoothly flights transverse this Nation.
If confirmed, I look forward to, and remain committed to, working
with our stakeholders in the aviation community, my colleagues at the
Department of Transportation, and, of course, the Congress, to
continuously improve the performance of the FAA and to ensure that our
system remains dynamic and future oriented that new safety innovations
are implemented and that the aviation community continues to share in
the growing record of safe operations.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is with humility that I say, it is an
honor to serve this great nation. From my days at the United States
Naval Academy to this very moment, I continue to be filled with pride
at what this country stands for. You have my solemn promise that, if
confirmed, I will uphold the best interests of the United States of
America and its people at all times. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I would
be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used):
Robert Allan Sturgell
Nickname: Bobby
2. Position to which nominated: Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration.
3. Date of Nomination: October 23, 2007.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 1010, Washington,
D.C. 20594.
5. Date and Place of Birth: August 1, 1959; Washington, D.C.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Spouse: Lynn Ann Sturgell (Stewart)
Child: Benjamin David Sturgell (5)
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland. 1978-1982,
Diploma received 1982.
Anne Arundel Community College, Arnold, Maryland, 1981-1982, no
diploma received (completed 25 hours of financial accounting
courses while simultaneously attending USNA).
University of Virginia School of Law, Charlottesville,
Virginia, 1991-1994, Diploma received 1994.
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to
the position for which you are nominated.
United States Naval Academy, May 1982 to January 1983,
Annapolis, MD, Physical Fitness Instructor.
Training Squadron Six, January 1983 to October 1983, NAS,
Pensacola, FL, Student Pilot.
Training Squadron Twenty-three, October 1983 to August 1984,
NAS, Kingsville, TX, Student Pilot.
Training Squadron Twenty-two, August 1984 to March 1985, NAS,
Kingsville, TX, Student Pilot.
Fighter Squadron One Two Four, March 1985 to March 1986, NAS,
Miramar, San Diego, CA, Fleet Replacement Pilot.
Fighter Squadron Fifty-one, March 1986 to May 1989, NAS,
Miramar, San Diego, CA, Training Officer, Weapons Instructor,
Administrative Officer.
Navy Fighter Weapons School, May 1989 to August 1991, NAS,
Miramar, San Diego, CA, Instructor Pilot, Administrative
Officer, Readiness Officer.
Fighter Composite Squadron Twelve, November 1991 to October
1998, NAS Oceana, Virginia Beach, VA, Instructor Pilot Safety
Officer.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Summer 1992, Washington,
D.C., Summer Intern.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, Summer 1993, 2300 N Street,
NW, Washington, D.C., Summer Intern.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge, June 1994 to February 1996,
2300 N Street, NW, Washington, D.C., Associate.
United Airlines, March 1996 to March 2002 *, Dulles
Int'l Airport, Washington, D.C., Flight Operations Supervisor,
Pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Leave of absence began March 2002. Resigned November 7, 2002.
National Transportation Safety Board, March 2002 to September
2002, 490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW, Washington, D.C., Senior Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advisor to the Chairman.
Federal Aviation Administration, September 2002 to Present, 800
Independence Ave, SW, Washington, D.C., Acting Administrator,
Deputy Administrator, Acting ATO Chief Operating Officer, Sr.
Counsel to the Administrator.
9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last 5 years.
Served as the President of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the
Calvert County Board of County Commissioners, 1999-2002.
11. List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational, or other institution within the last 5 years.
Blue Heron Properties, LLC--sole owner (company dissolved in 2003)
12. Please list each membership you have had during the past 10
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age, or handicap.
District of Columbia Bar Association--1994 to present.
Maryland State Bar Association--1994 to present.
NTSB Bar Association--1994-1996, 2002.
Southern Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce--1999-2001
(Board member).
Boys and Girls Club of Southern Maryland--2000 (Board member).
Air Line Pilots Association--1996-2002.
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
(elected, nonelected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
personally liable for that debt.
Candidate, Maryland State Senate, District 27--1998; Outstanding
Debt: None
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years. Also list all offices you
have held with, and services rendered to, a state or national political
party or election committee during the same period.
1998-2004, Member, South County Republican Club.
1998 to present, Member, Southern Prince George's County
Republican Club.
1998 to present, Member, Calvert County Republican Club.
2000, Volunteer, Bush/Cheney 2000.
2002, Volunteer, Ehrlich for Governor; Contribution: $500.00.
2002, Volunteer, Hale for County Commissioner.
2002, Wayson for County Council; Contribution: $500.00.
2004, $1,000; Bush for President, 2004.
2004, $500; Republican National Committee.
2006, $1,000; Ehrlich for Governor, 2006.
2005, $1,000; Hale for Delegate, 2006.
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
National Society Daughters of the American Revolution Award,
1978.
United States Naval Academy Alumni Association Award, 1982.
Secretary of the Navy Distinguished Midshipman Graduate Award,
1982.
Lieutenant Clarence Louis Tibbals Memorial Award, 1982.
Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, 1982.
Commodore's List, Training Air Wing Two, 1985.
Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (2 awards), 1986 and 1988.
Meritorious Unit Commendation, 1988.
Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, 1988.
Navy Achievement Medal, 1989.
White House Fellow, Regional Finalist, 1990-91.
National Defense Service Medal, 1991.
University of Virginia School of Law, Dillard Fellow, 1992-
1994.
The Virginia Trial Lawyers Award for Trial Advocacy, 1994.
Navy Achievement Medal, 1997.
Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal, 1998.
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you
have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
Articles
When All Else Fails, Blame the ADB, Approach magazine,
September 1989.
More BFM: Out of Plane Maneuvering and Effective Rate/Radius,
TOPGUN Journal, Spring/Summer 1989.
Carrier Battlegroup Defensive Weapons Systems, TOPGUN Journal,
1990.
F-14 Section Tactics: The Intercept Phase, TOPGUN Journal, Fall
1990.
F-14 Section Tactics: The Weapons Employment Phase, TOPGUN
Journal, Winter 1990-91.
F-14 Section Tactics: Post-Merge Phase, TOPGUN Journal, Spring
1991.
Forward Quarter Tactics in Desert Storm, TOPGUN Journal, Summer
1991.
Letter to the Editor, The New Bay Times, September
1998.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ Various letters to editor during 1998 election campaign,
articles not retained and not available by website search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary, The New Bay Times, October 1998.
Letter to the Editor, The Capital, September 9, 1998.
Speeches
Challenge & Success, FAA Information Technology/Information
Systems Security Partnership and Training Conference, March,
2005.
Black Boxes and Gray Matter, NATCA ASI Forum, March, 2005.
A Proud Tradition, Labace 2005, March 2005.
Working Together, CMAC Honored Speaker Remarks, May, 2005.
Our Pledge to America, Equipment Dedication Ceremony, June
2005.
Aircraft Certification Leadership Conference, August, 2005.
Beat Army, New Controller Welcome, August 2005.
A Good Investment, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Int'l Airport
Runway Dedication.
Not Business as Usual, NBAA, November 2005.
AAAE, Hawaii, January, 2006.
Aviation Cooperation Program Meeting, Beijing, April 2006.
Aviation Cooperation Program Luncheon, Beijing, April 2006.
IATA Fuel Efficiency Seminar, Beijing, April 2006.
China Press Roundtable, Beijing, April 2006.
Pomp and Circumstances for Tomorrow's Leaders, ASH Model
Graduation Ceremony, May, 2006.
Clear Skies Ahead, FAA Environmental Awards, May, 2006.
Keep Showin' Us the Way, AAAE Contract Tower Workshop, June
2006.
Unsurpassed Training Starts Right Here, International Aviation
Training Symposium, July, 2006.
Good Planning Makes a Difference, Tappahannock-Essex Airport
Grant, August, 2006.
Walking Hand in Hand, EMTD Graduation, August 2006.
A Level Playing Field for All, AAAE DBE Conference, October
2006.
International Safety Forum Opening Session, November 2006.
Addressing Challenges, Civil/Military Air Traffic Management
Seminar, February 2007.
NASAO Legislative Conference, March 2007.
Spokane ATCT/TRACON Dedication Ceremony, August 2007.
China EMDT Graduation, September 2007.
A Great Airport at a Great Time, Dulles Tower Dedication,
September 2007.
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each
testimony.
07/21/2005, House Government Reform Committee (ADIZ).
03/22/2007, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation;
Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Subcommittee/ATC
Modernization.
05/09/2007, House Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Aviation--The Future of Air Traffic Control
Modernization.
09/26/2007, House Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Aviation--Airline Delays and Consumer Issues.
09/27/2007, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation;
Aviation Operations, Safety, and Security Subcommittee--
Congestion and Delays at the Nation's Airports.
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that
position?
My entire career has been devoted to aviation. Since 2002, I have
held increasing positions of responsibility at the FAA. I have been the
Deputy Administrator since March 2003 and the Acting Administrator
since September 2007.
I wish to serve as FAA Administrator because I am a strong believer
in public service and commitment. At this point in our Nation's history
and in my professional career, I cannot think of a more important
service that I could perform. I am grateful for the support that has
been given me by the Secretary, and I am deeply honored that the
President has nominated me to serve as Administrator.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large
organization?
If confirmed as Administrator, I would be responsible for ensuring
taxpayer monies are spent prudently and efficiently in executing the
mission of the FAA. As the Acting Administrator and Deputy
Administrator of the FAA for the past 5 years, I have extensive
experience managing an organization with approximately 45,500
employees. Our budget for Fiscal Year 2007 was more than $14 billion.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency, and why?
The top 3 challenges facing the FAA are safety, capacity and human
capital planning. The agency must continue to improve aviation safety
as the industry grows and evolves, and it must also increase capacity
by transforming the system to the next generation system. Finally, the
FAA must ensure that it maintains the correct skill sets to achieve
these goals, including aviation safety inspectors, engineers, program
managers, technicians and air traffic controllers.
b. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
accounts: None.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain: No.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated: Please refer to the
General Counsel's Opinion letter.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None.
5. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
In my various positions at the FAA and NTSB from 2002 until the
present, I assisted in the preparation of testimony presented before
the House and Senate authorizing and appropriations committees. I have
also met with members and testified before Congress on issues involving
the FAA, including pending legislation.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items: Please refer to the enclosed General Counsel's Opinion letter.
c. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? If so, please explain: No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain: No.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain: No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain: No.
5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or
any other basis? If so, please explain: No.
6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: None.
d. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect Congressional witnesses and whistleblowers from reprisal for
their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
______
resume of robert a. sturgell
Education
University of Virginia School of Law, J.D. 1994; Dillard Fellow;
Virginia Trial Lawyers' Trial Advocacy Award.
United States Naval Academy, B.S. 1982.
Graduated with Distinction, Resources Management (GPA 3.82,
Rank 8/1037).
USNA Alumni Association Award for the outstanding midshipman
graduate.
Participant, Varsity Lacrosse (2 Years).
Anne Arundel Community College, 1982.
Completed 25 credit hours in Financial Accounting courses.
Experience
Federal Aviation Administration (2002 to present).
Acting Administrator (Sep. 2007 to present).
Directs the operations of the Federal Aviation Administration
and acts as principal advisor to the Secretary of
Transportation on civil aviation matters and air
transportation.
Deputy Administrator (2003 to present).
Joins the Administrator in heading the agency that regulates
and advances the safety of the Nation's airways, airports and
operates the world's largest air traffic control system.
Directly responsible for the day-to-day operations of the
agency's 46,000 personnel and $14 billion annual budget, as
well as its capital programs and modernization efforts.
Air Traffic Organization Chief Operating Officer (Acting) (2007 to
present).
Responsible for the day-to-day operations, maintenance and
capital programs of the 33,000 person air traffic organization.
Senior Counsel to the Administrator (2002-2003).
Primary advisor to the Administrator on regulatory policy and
management initiatives.
National Transportation Safety Board (2002).
Senior policy advisor to the Chairman. Primary advisor and
coordinator on NTSB safety recommendations, accident reports,
legal opinions and orders, policy programs and management
initiatives.
United Airlines (1996-2002).
Flight Operations Supervisor responsible for the performance,
training, and counseling of probationary pilots assigned to the
Washington, Dulles domicile. Fully qualified flight officer
flying the Boeing 767 and Boeing 757 aircraft in both
international and domestic operations.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge (1994-1996).
Attorney assigned to the Aviation and Litigation groups
representing major aviation and corporate clients before the
Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of
Transportation in all regulatory matters, including enforcement
proceedings, code-sharing, consumer affairs and bilateral
aviation agreements.
United States Naval Officer (1982-2002).
Twenty years (active and reserve duty) as a Naval Aviator
flying the F/A-18 Hornet, F-14A Tomcat, F-16N Falcon and A-4
Skyhawk with over 2,000 flight hours and 280 arrested carrier
landings. Extensive experience in operations management
including developing annual plans and managing operating
budgets in excess of $5 million. Responsible for the
maintenance of 12 aircraft valued at over $400 million. Twice
awarded Navy Achievement Medal for outstanding professional
achievements and Squadron Pilot of the Year for exceptional
leadership.
TOPGUN Flight Instructor (1989-1991).
A member of the prestigious Navy Fighter Weapons School
instructing Navy and Marine Corps pilots in graduate-level
tactics, training and weapons systems. Lectured extensively on
carrier battle group defensive weapon systems and F-14 section
tactics. Authored numerous articles on tactics, training and
aviation safety.
Community
President, Calvert County Citizens Advisory Committee (1998-2002).
Board Member, Boys & Girls Club of Southern Maryland (1999-2000).
Board Member, Southern Anne Arundel County Chamber of Commerce
(2000-2001).
Member, Deale/ShadySide Small Area Planning Committee (1999-2001).
The Chairman. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Sturgell.
And now may I call upon Mr. Simon Gros?
STATEMENT OF SIMON CHARLES GROS, NOMINEE TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Gros. Thank you, sir. Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman
Stevens, Members of the Committee, thank you for offering me
the opportunity to appear before you today, as you consider my
nomination to be Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs
at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
I am honored to have been recommended by Secretary Peters
and nominated by President Bush to continue my service to the
Administration. I am also grateful and lucky to have enjoyed
incredible support from family and friends through the years. I
would especially like to recognize Congressman Frank LoBiondo,
my hometown Congressman, for whom I worked when I first came to
Washington.
And I would be remiss if I failed to thank my parents,
Barbara Errickson and Roger Gros, for all of the guidance they
have given me. Most importantly, I would never be where I am
today if not for the support of my best friend and wife,
Natalie.
Sir, the primary role of any Assistant Secretary for
Governmental Affairs is to enable effective communication
between Federal, state, and local elected officials and the
department. With less than a year left in this Administration,
I believe that this function is more important than ever,
especially as Congress--and this Committee in particular--
debates legislation critical to the future of our Nation's
transportation system.
If confirmed, I pledge that my office will remain in
constant contact with Congress on all issues affecting the
department. I will be responsive to Congressional inquiries and
proactive when communicating departmental priorities and
activities. And I will work within the department to ensure
that we comply with both the spirit and the letter of laws
passed by Congress.
Sir, it is, indeed, a rare honor to serve as Assistant
Secretary of Transportation. If confirmed, I will represent the
department with integrity and reliability. I look forward to
working with you and your staff to help make sure
transportation remains safe and becomes more efficient for all
Americans.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement and biographical information of Mr.
Gros follow:]
Prepared Statement of Simon Charles Gros, Nominee to be Assistant
Secretary for Governmental Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman Inouye, Vice Chairman Stevens, Members of the Committee,
thank you for offering me the opportunity to appear before you today as
you consider my nomination to be Assistant Secretary for Governmental
Affairs at the U.S. Department of Transportation. I am honored to have
been recommended by Secretary Peters and nominated by President Bush to
continue my service in the Administration.
I am also grateful and lucky to have enjoyed incredible support
from family and friends through the years. I'd especially like to
recognize Congressman Frank LoBiondo, my home-town Congressman, for
whom I worked when I first came to Washington. And I would be remiss if
I failed to thank my parents, Barbara Errickson and Roger Gros, for all
of the guidance they have given me. Most importantly, I would never be
where I am today if not for the support of my best friend and wife,
Natalie.
The primary role of any Assistant Secretary for Governmental
Affairs is to enable effective communication between elected officials
at the Federal, State, and local level and the Department. With a
little over a year left in this Administration, I believe that this
function is more important than ever, especially as Congress, and this
Committee in particular, debate legislation critical to the future of
our Nation's transportation infrastructure. If confirmed, I pledge that
my office will remain in constant contact with Congress on all issues
affecting the Department. I will be responsive to Congressional
inquiries and proactive when communicating Departmental activities. And
I will work within the Department to ensure that we comply with both
the spirit and the letter of laws passed.
It is indeed a rare honor to serve as Assistant Secretary of
Transportation. If confirmed, I will represent the Department with
integrity and reliability. I look forward to the opportunity to work
with you and your staff to help make transportation safer and more
efficient for all Americans.
Thank you for considering my nomination, and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
______
a. biographical information
1. Name (Include any former names or nicknames used): Simon Charles
Gros.
2. Position to which nominated: Assistant Secretary of
Transportation (Governmental Affairs).
3. Date of Nomination: October 16, 2007.
4. Address (List current place of residence and office addresses):
Residence: Information not released to the public.
Office: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, W85-320, Washington, D.C.
20590.
5. Date and Place of Birth: June 30, 1975; Falls Church, VA.
6. Provide the name, position, and place of employment for your
spouse (if married) and the names and ages of your children (including
stepchildren and children by a previous marriage).
Natalie Jessica Cantor Gros, not employed.
7. List all college and graduate degrees. Provide year and school
attended.
George Mason University School of Law, J.D. (2004), J.M.
(2001).
University of Maryland at College Park, B.A. (1997).
8. List all post-undergraduate employment, and highlight all
management-level jobs held and any non-managerial jobs that relate to
the position for which you are nominated.
My employment history is listed below. Management-level jobs are
noted with an asterisk (*). All of my past employment, both managerial
and non-managerial, relates to the position for which I am nominated.
United States Department of Transportation--Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Governmental Affairs*; Deputy Chief of Staff*;
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Governmental
Affairs; Associate Director, Office of Governmental Affairs.
Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc.--Director of Government Affairs.
Kessler Century Government Relations--Legislative Associate.
U.S. Representative Frank A. LoBiondo--Legislative Aide;
Legislative Correspondent; Staff Assistant.
9. Attach a copy of your resume. A copy is attached.
10. List any advisory, consultative, honorary, or other part-time
service or positions with Federal, State, or local governments, other
than those listed above, within the last 5 years: None.
11.List all positions held as an officer, director, trustee,
partner, proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business, enterprise,
educational, or other institution within the last 5 years: None.
12. Please list each membership you have had during the past 10
years or currently hold with any civic, social, charitable,
educational, political, professional, fraternal, benevolent or
religious organization, private club, or other membership organization.
Include dates of membership and any positions you have held with any
organization. Please note whether any such club or organization
restricts membership on the basis of sex, race, color, religion,
national origin, age, or handicap.
Lincoln Majority (Treasurer, 2003-2004).
Republican National Lawyers Association (2005-2006).
New Jersey State Bar Association (2004 to present).
13. Have you ever been a candidate for and/or held a public office
(elected, non-elected, or appointed)? If so, indicate whether any
campaign has any outstanding debt, the amount, and whether you are
personally liable for that debt: No.
14. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign
organization, political party, political action committee, or similar
entity of $500 or more for the past 10 years. Also list all offices you
have held with, and services rendered to, a state or national political
party or election committee during the same period.
Republican National Committee 72-Hour Task Force.
Tom Kean for U.S. Senate (2006).
Bush-Cheney 2004.
Thune for Senate (2002).
15. List all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, honorary
society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognition
for outstanding service or achievements.
Secretary's Gold Medal, Department of Transportation, 2006.
Secretary's Team Award, Department of Transportation, 2005.
16. Please list each book, article, column, or publication you have
authored, individually or with others. Also list any speeches that you
have given on topics relevant to the position for which you have been
nominated. Do not attach copies of these publications unless otherwise
instructed.
``New Internet Gambling Prohibition Bill Passes House
Committee'', www.winneronline.com, June 29, 2000.
``House Rejects Internet Gambling Ban'', www.winneronline.com,
July 10, 2000.
17. Please identify each instance in which you have testified
orally or in writing before Congress in a governmental or non-
governmental capacity and specify the date and subject matter of each
testimony: None.
18. Given the current mission, major programs, and major
operational objectives of the department/agency to which you have been
nominated, what in your background or employment experience do you
believe affirmatively qualifies you for appointment to the position for
which you have been nominated, and why do you wish to serve in that
position?
If confirmed, I believe that my service at Department of
Transportation, along with my previous work experience, will provide a
solid foundation from which to guide DOT's government affairs operation
through the end of the Administration. I began my career as a
congressional staffer, gaining valuable insight into the legislative
process. And while I furthered my governmental education in the private
sector, it has been my experience in the DOT's Office of Governmental
Affairs and as Deputy Chief of Staff that truly solidifies my
qualifications. During my three and a half years at the DOT, I have
gained an understanding of both the inner workings of the Department
and how issues are considered by Congress. As such, I am uniquely
qualified for this position.
I am interested in this position primarily because I wish to
continue my service to the President and to Secretary Mary Peters.
President Bush has provided Secretary Peters with a platform from which
to bring about needed change in this country's transportation system.
The Secretary has responded by proposing cutting-edge transportation
policy reforms, and I firmly believe that, if confirmed, I can help her
to work with Congress to bring about these reforms.
19. What do you believe are your responsibilities, if confirmed, to
ensure that the department/agency has proper management and accounting
controls, and what experience do you have in managing a large
organization?
I firmly believe that, as a public servant, my first duty is to the
American taxpayer. As Deputy Chief of Staff of the U.S. Department of
Transportation for more than a year, I experienced first-hand the
complexities of management and the importance of controls. I was
responsible for managing the Immediate Office of the Secretary, as well
as helping to coordinate the overall management of the Department.
If confirmed, I will work as Assistant Secretary of Transportation
(Governmental Affairs) to ensure that the Office of Governmental
Affairs is a proper steward of the taxpayers' dollars. I will take
affirmative steps to continue appropriate management and accounting
controls.
20. What do you believe to be the top three challenges facing the
department/agency, and why?
The top challenge at the Department of Transportation is to
maintain and improve safety within our transportation system. In the
air, we are enjoying a safety record not seen since the dawn of the jet
age. We can do better, however, and are working to do just that with
the anticipated deployment of the Next Generation Air Traffic Control
System and the dedication of our aviation safety professionals. On our
Nation's highways, the fatality rate dropped to its lowest level ever
in 2006--and still more than 40,000 Americans were killed. The
Secretary is rightly focusing her attention on those categories of
fatalities that are most problematic, such as motorcycle and alcohol-
related deaths.
The Department is also faced with significant mobility problems
across the country. Americans are spending more and more time stuck in
traffic and more and more time away from their families. Inefficient
freight movement is threatening to stall America's economy at a time
when goods are expected to move faster than ever. Delays at our
airports are ruining family vacations and forcing business travelers to
travel less efficiently. The Secretary is taking affirmative steps to
combat these problems, through various aspects of the Department's
ground-breaking congestion initiative, and I think that many of the
solutions identified by the DOT will lead to improved mobility, both in
the short- and long-term.
Finally, I believe that the Department must be an advocate for
technology advancement. The challenges listed above will only be solved
by effective deployment of innovative technological solutions. The DOT
can help to make Americans safer by encouraging the NextGen satellite
air traffic control system, electronic stability control in
automobiles, and positive train control on the rails. DOT can help the
average American move through the system faster and more efficiently by
incentivizing the use of new intelligent transportation systems. The
modes, especially the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration, will take the lead within the Department on this
challenge.
b. potential conflicts of interest
1. Describe all financial arrangements, deferred compensation
agreements, and other continuing dealings with business associates,
clients, or customers. Please include information related to retirement
accounts.
I maintain a 401(k) retirement account with my former employer, Van
Scoyoc Associates. The account contains less than $20,000.
2. Do you have any commitments or agreements, formal or informal,
to maintain employment, affiliation, or practice with any business,
association or other organization during your appointment? If so,
please explain: No.
3. Indicate any investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
relationships which could involve potential conflicts of interest in
the position to which you have been nominated: None.
4. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years, whether for
yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in
any way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the
position to which you have been nominated: None.
5. Describe any activity during the past 10 years in which you have
been engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influencing the
passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the
administration and execution of law or public policy.
Since I entered the workforce in December 1997, I have engaged in
activities described above, none of which would constitute a conflict
of interest, if confirmed. Specifically:
As a staff member for Congressman Frank LoBiondo from 1997 to
2000, I was involved in all aspects of the legislative process.
As a private-sector lobbyist from 2000 to 2004, I frequently
worked to advance my clients' interests through state and
Federal legislation.
As an employee of the Department of Transportation since May
2004, I have on many occasions, consistent with the law,
advocated for or against various pieces of legislation relating
to the Department's mission.
6. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that may be disclosed by your responses to the above
items.
Should any conflict of interest arise, I would immediately recuse
myself from all activities concerning that conflict.
c. legal matters
1. Have you ever been disciplined or cited for a breach of ethics
by, or been the subject of a complaint to any court, administrative
agency, professional association, disciplinary committee, or other
professional group? If so, please explain: No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by
any Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority of any Federal,
State, county, or municipal entity, other than for a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain.
I was arrested in Washington, D.C. in 1997 for destruction of
public property. The incident was determined to be accidental, however,
and no charges were filed.
3. Have you or any business of which you are or were an officer
ever been involved as a party in an administrative agency proceeding or
civil litigation? If so, please explain: No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, please explain: No.
5. Have you ever been accused, formally or informally, of sexual
harassment or discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, or
any other basis? If so, please explain: No.
6. Please advise the Committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be disclosed in
connection with your nomination: None.
d. relationship with committee
1. Will you ensure that your department/agency complies with
deadlines for information set by Congressional committees? Yes.
2. Will you ensure that your department/agency does whatever it can
to protect Congressional witnesses and whistleblowers from reprisal for
their testimony and disclosures? Yes.
3. Will you cooperate in providing the Committee with requested
witnesses, including technical experts and career employees, with
firsthand knowledge of matters of interest to the Committee? Yes.
4. Are you willing to appear and testify before any duly
constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may be
reasonably requested to do so? Yes.
______
resume of simon c. gros
Employment
United States Department of Transportation, May 2004 to present,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs (6/07 to present).
Serve as the Secretary's primary advisor for all
intergovernmental (Federal, state, and local) matters
pertaining to the Department of Transportation.
Responsible for developing aggressive governmental affairs
strategies for various Departmental undertakings.
Manage the Secretary's Office of Governmental Affairs, with 14
employees and an annual budget of more than $2.3 million.
Deputy Chief of Staff (5/06 to 6/07).
Served as Secretary's representative for policy development and
coordination, both within the Department and with other
agencies and the White House.
Provided strategic advice and counsel to the Secretary and
Deputy Secretary.
Supported the Chief of Staff in managing all aspects of a
Federal agency with nearly 59,000 employees and a $58 billion
annual budget.
Managed the immediate Office of the Secretary, including the
scheduling office, policy advisors, military liaisons, and
support staff.
Served in an advisory capacity for political personnel
decisions, in addition to acting as White House Liaison during
a vacancy.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Governmental
Affairs (7/05 to 5/06); Associate Director, Office of Governmental
Affairs (5/04 to 7/05).
Served as liaison between the Secretary of Transportation,
Members of Congress from ten northeastern states, and various
agency modes.
Provided governmental affairs oversight for the Federal
Aviation Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration,
the DOT's Office of Aviation and International Affairs, and on
security matters.
Advised and prepared the Secretary, modal Administrators, and
other agency officials for hearings and meetings with lawmakers
and their staff.
Coordinated DOT Congressional activity with other DOT modal
agencies to ensure strategic continuity.
Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc., July 2001 to May 2004, Director of
Government Affairs.
Worked on behalf of clients to establish and maintain effective
communications with Members of Congress, committee staff, and
Administration officials in Washington.
Advanced client priorities through annual appropriations
legislation, authorizing bills, and agency regulation.
Acted as D.C. representative for clients at meetings and
fundraisers.
Developed and utilized a system of grassroots communications to
better effect contact between constituents and their
representatives.
Organized D.C.-based educational events for Congressional and
Administration staff.
Organized fundraising events for clients, and served as
assistant treasurer for a client's political action committee.
Specific areas of client interest included aviation security,
highway construction, transit, railroads, education, and
general research and development.
Kessler Century Government Relations, March 2000 to July 2001,
Legislative Associate.
Advocated on behalf of clients on Capitol Hill and in the
Administration.
Concentrated primarily on transportation, prescription drug,
and gaming issues.
Represented the firm at key industry conferences.
U.S. Representative Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ), December 1997 to March
2000, Staff Assistant; Legislative Correspondent; Legislative Aide.
Supported the Congressman in his role as a member of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Advised the Congressman on a variety of other issues, including
but not limited to judiciary, telecommunications, banking,
armed services, and small business.
Served as Staff Director for the Congressional Gaming Caucus.
Worked with House Judiciary Committee staff to draft and pass
``The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act,'' which was
signed into law in 1998.
Education
George Mason University School of Law
Juris Doctor, 2004
Juris Master, 2001
University of Maryland, College Park
Bachelor of Arts, 1997.
Other
Tom Kean for U.S. Senate (2006); Volunteer; Atlantic and Cape May
Counties, New Jersey.
Bush-Cheney 2004; Volunteer; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and
Atlantic County, New Jersey.
Thune for Senate (2002); Volunteer; Aberdeen, Sioux Falls, and
Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation, South Dakota.
``Top Secret'' level national security clearance.
Memberships
New Jersey State Bar Association
The Chairman. I thank you very much, Mr. Gros.
Senator Thune, would you care to make a statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome
our nominees this morning and appreciate your willingness to
serve the country.
And Mr. Sturgell, I know I have had the opportunity to
visit with you a little bit about some of the airline issues
that are important in my State. But I would just, when we get
into questions, be interested in hearing a little bit about
your views on airline consolidation. That is something that is
of great interest to those of us who represent rural areas and
what that might mean in terms of service and cost and what not
for travelers in rural areas of the country.
And also I appreciate your focus on getting away from
delays. Of course, last year everybody knows was second-worst
ever on record, and that is something that also I think all of
us on the panel are very interested in and hope that you will
tackle and attack. And I know in your capacity as the Acting
Administrator, you have been focusing on that, and I would
encourage you to continue to do that and look forward to
hearing your thoughts about how we might be able to improve
even further on that.
So thank you again for being here today and for your
service. And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Rockefeller?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. I have no statement, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Well, I thank you all very much. I will call
upon the Vice Chairman to begin the questioning.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. Mr. Sturgell, Members
have talked here about delays. I think the two of us, the
Chairman and I, probably fly a greater distance on aircraft
than any Senators in history. And I have noticed personally the
problems related to delays.
And I have spoken here about it before. I just want to
remind the Committee of one instance where I went to National,
and we had to wait 2 hours because the cabin crew was stuck in
New York because of a storm. So we waited. We took off 2 hours
late, went to the Midwest hub, and we were first told there was
a mechanical problem, but then they told us the truth and said
we were waiting for pilots.
So we waited 3 hours there for pilots. And when the pilots
came on, the pilot told us this story that because of the mix-
up, the plane hadn't been fueled. And then at the end, after
the plane was fueled, he told us there was no food onboard. We
are going from Midwest into Alaska, about a 4.5-hour trip. And
they said but we do have soft drinks and a few cookies. We can
wait for the food or take off. And everybody shouted ``take
off,'' of course.
But I want you to know, I don't think it is the FAA's
problem necessarily, but the FAA has neglected to deal with the
operators of these aircraft to work out a system where we are
not delayed because the crews aren't there. And I think one of
your first jobs should be to look into how to manage the
airlines so there are people there to man them and fly them,
and they are fueled and with food onboard before they take off.
I really think that all of these delays are related to the
problem of allowing crews to live in one part of the country
and fly into another. Some of the people that fly to Alaska
live in Florida. That is a new twist in the airline industry,
and I think it should be examined. If you don't examine it, I
am going to ask the Chairman to examine it here with public
hearings.
Now, second, I am a little disturbed. I want to ask you a
question about this one. When the CAB was eliminated from the
system and we created the FAA and we had the concept of really
not the government no longer designing airline routes and who
flew where and how often, one of the things that we started was
to automate a lot of the flight service stations around the
country.
But there was an agreement made in my state, Alaska, that
because of its size and the dependence upon aviation, as I
indicated, the flight service stations would be maintained.
Some time later, we were told that the contract to manage those
flight service stations had been worked out with Lockheed, and
Lockheed took over the management of them.
I met just last week with a group of those flight station
operators who are slowly but surely leaving because of the
changes in policy--I understand Lockheed walked away from that,
and now it is back with FAA. One young woman told me she was 4
days from her retirement, and she was given a discharge. Two
others told me that they had just signed up for their extension
of service, and they were told they were going to be reassigned
to another State.
Now, I don't think you have many flight service stations
left in the rest of the United States, do you?
Mr. Sturgell. That system, that service is now being
provided by Lockheed Martin in the Lower 48 states, Senator.
Senator Stevens. But they have walked away from Alaska?
Mr. Sturgell. Alaska was never part of the service contract
for the flight service stations.
Senator Stevens. Well, I understood from what they said, it
had been. But they did have a relationship to Lockheed, but
they don't now. But the numbers of the flight service operators
are about 50 percent of what they were 3 years ago. What
happened?
Mr. Sturgell. We are maintaining the FAA's network of
flight service stations in Alaska. As you know, we have three
of those that are automated flight service stations, and we are
looking now at upgrading the technology at those flight service
stations.
Senator Stevens. Well, let me tell you, are you a pilot?
Mr. Sturgell. I am.
Senator Stevens. How would you like to land in Sicily with
someone sitting in Paris telling you what the quality of the
runway was? Do you know how big my state is? It is Italy,
Germany, France, and Spain put together, and you are trying to
run it from Anchorage.
Now I want to sit down with you, and really, this can't go
on. We eliminated deaths in our aviation community with the
cooperation of your predecessor, and I think we have the best
flight safety concepts in the world now. But the problems that
are coming up now are because of the lack of information about
the condition of the airports where these pilots are flying
into and the lack of information on the ground as to changes in
conditions that have occurred while the plane has been in the
air.
We have got to reopen those flight service stations. I have
got to tell you, if what I was told last week is right, you are
wrong. Because half of the flight service stations were closed,
I am told, within the last 3 years. Now will you check that for
me?
Mr. Sturgell. I will, Senator. And I spent several weeks
flying F-14s out of Naval Air Station Adak. So I know the
landscape up there. I know how important that service is to you
and your state, and I would certainly be pleased to get
together with you and talk to you about it.
Senator Stevens. You know there are three mountain ranges
in Alaska, and if you flew out of Adak, you were in safe
country compared to the north country. I really want to work
with you, but I met with a group of people, both in the
industry, both operators and personnel in those flight service
stations, and they are an angry crew.
And they are angry at me because I didn't know what was
going on. So I hope the two of us can find out what is going on
before I go back up home. I don't like being scalped.
Mr. Sturgell. I will be following up with you on it.
Senator Stevens. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Boxer?
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
I want to talk with you, Mr. Sturgell, about the passenger
bill of rights that Senator Snowe and I wrote and the fact that
you are coming out with proposed rulemaking. Why do you have a
rule that does not--a proposed rule that doesn't include
minimum standards for airline contingency plans for food,
water, and a timetable for passengers to deplane when they are
stranded on the tarmac? You don't have minimum standards.
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, I think Mr. Gros will join in here,
but I just want to update you a little bit on what the
Secretary and the Department have done with respect to those
types of issues.
Senator Boxer. Well, let me just say because I don't--do
you believe that the final rule will have minimum standards? So
that we know that our people aren't going to be starving, and
if they are sitting on the tarmac for hours, that the toilets
are going to be working? That is all I want to know. Will you
include that?
Mr. Sturgell. I do know that the Department has worked with
airlines, and a number of airlines have voluntarily set those
types of limits for how long they will be on the tarmac. The
Secretary has recently----
Senator Boxer. No, no, we are not talking about that. We
are talking about a DOT rule for minimum standards. Some of the
airlines, yes. Some of the airlines, no. The point of Senator
Snowe's bill and my bill is so that we, as America, say you can
treat people, you must treat people with dignity and respect
and be concerned about their safety.
Will you have, I just want a yes or no, minimum standards
in that rule for the airlines to follow?
Mr. Sturgell. As you indicated, the rule does not propose
standards. Certainly, comments will be considered and
developed.
Senator Boxer. OK. So right now, it doesn't have the
standards. Well, then Olympia Snowe and I are going to have to
have a meeting with Secretary Peters about it. OK, let us move
on.
GAO reported in December that at least 20 percent of
controllers at 25 facilities were working 6-day weeks. What
does the FAA consider an acceptable work schedule for
controllers?
Mr. Sturgell. The work schedule for controllers is set at a
normal 8-hour day with a maximum 2 hours of overtime per day,
and they are limited to 6 days a week. That is very similar to
the rules for pilots.
Senator Boxer. So you think 10 hours a day, 6 days a week
is going to lead us to have safety in the skies. Is that right?
Mr. Sturgell. No, we don't----
Senator Boxer. I am asking your opinion. Senators, I am
just going to wait. I am sorry. I just--I feel it is important
for my Chairman to hear certain things, and I just think what
we have just heard, unless I was wrong, is that Mr. Sturgell
believes that a 6-day week, 10 hours a day, is a fair work
schedule for our controllers.
And I think it is so critical, and you stand by that? You
don't have any intention of changing that as Administrator?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, that is--let me just clarify what I
said.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Sturgell. Our controllers' schedules are limited to an
8-hour day, plus 2 hours of overtime and a maximum of 6 days a
week.
Senator Boxer. That is what I----
Mr. Sturgell. Those are the policies that we stand by. A
large number of our controllers volunteer for overtime duty.
But that overtime is performed within those standards.
Senator Boxer. But my understanding is the GAO reported at
least 20 percent of controllers at 25 facilities were working
that 6-day week as a regular schedule. Do you consider that an
acceptable regular schedule?
Mr. Sturgell. By and large, they are volunteering for that
overtime.
Senator Boxer. I didn't ask you if they are volunteering. I
might, if I was poor or had a problem or had a divorce and had
to pay my wife or whatever my circumstances are, I might
volunteer to work 12 hours a day. I am not asking you if they
volunteer. I am asking you whether you think it works for
safety in the skies to have 20 percent of controllers at 25
facilities, including towers at major airports, working 6 days
a week?
And you are saying it is voluntary. I am not asking you
that. I am asking you if you think that is the optimum
situation?
Mr. Sturgell. We have about two dozen facilities where we
are trying to focus more heavily on our staffing and training
efforts. By and large, system wide, we are running at less than
2 percent overtime and an average of about 4 hours and 50
minutes.
Senator Boxer. OK, I appreciate this. But you are not
giving me your opinion. So am I to assume then that you are
concerned that GAO reported that at least 20 percent of
controllers at 25 facilities are working 6 days a week,
including towers at major airports? That is a concern? Can I
take that away from your answer?
Mr. Sturgell. Yes.
Senator Boxer. Good. Good.
Mr. Sturgell. There are about two dozen facilities that we
are focused on.
Senator Boxer. Excellent. That was what I was trying to get
to. The December 2007 GAO report mentioned the FAA may not be
accurately reporting the number and details of runway
incursions. Why did the FAA not immediately investigate a
possible runway incursion at San Diego airport 2 weeks ago?
Mr. Sturgell. I am not familiar with the specifics of that
particular event, but I will look into it.
Senator Boxer. OK, can I get you--I would love you to look
into it. But the GAO, I mean, this isn't me or Senator Stevens
or Senator Inouye or Rockefeller or Hutchison, this is the GAO,
December 2007, said you may not be accurately reporting the
number and details of runway incursions. Do you agree with that
opinion of the GAO?
Mr. Sturgell. I think we can always do better. I think we
try and report as accurately as possible, and I think we are
doing a pretty good job at that. I would also point out that we
have done great work in reducing the number of serious runway
incursions. This is an area, like all of the areas of safety,
you just can't let up on.
We just have to keep going at this and going at it and
going at it, and that is what we intend to do.
Senator Boxer. Well, OK. I hope that I can infer from that
that it is an unacceptable situation, and you are going to sit
everybody down and get to the bottom of it. Because, here, I
would like to put in the record an article from the The San
Diego Union-Tribune, January 26, the FAA blamed a runway
incursion on a control tower mistake.
[The information referred to follows:]
The San Diego-Union Tribune--January 26, 2008
FAA Faults tower for Lindbergh incursion
By Steve Schmidt, Staff Writer
SAN DIEGO--The Federal Aviation Administration yesterday blamed a
runway incursion at Lindbergh Field last week on a control tower
mistake.
FAA safety officials in Washington, D.C., determined that an air
traffic controller at Lindbergh erred when he cleared a Southwest
Airlines plane for takeoff while a smaller jet remained on the 9,400-
foot-long runway.
Agency spokesman Ian Gregor said that when the Southwest plane
lifted off, the two aircraft were about 2,500 feet apart--about 500
feet closer than initially reported.
``There was no collision hazard because Southwest took off a half-
mile from where the (other plane) was,'' Gregor said.
He said the FAA is continuing its review of the Jan. 16 incident,
which occurred under clear skies just before 6 p.m.
Earlier this week, Gregor said the agency had looked into the
incident and did not consider it a safety breach. He later said FAA
officials in Washington were taking a deeper look.
Representatives of the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association, the controllers union, said they believe the FAA initially
tried to cover up the incident. Melvin Davis, a San Diego-area chapter
president of the controllers union, said the incident should have
raised a red flag with the FAA from the start.
The FAA and the union have been locked in a long-running feud over
staffing levels, workplace rules and related issues as part of a
broader debate over the adequacy of the Nation's air traffic control
system.
The union says the system is badly frayed due to workplace changes
and the retirement of many seasoned controllers.
The FAA says the changes have saved taxpayer money without
compromising safety.
Union and FAA officials say the Lindbergh incursion occurred after
a Hawker Siddeley corporate jet landed and prepared to taxi off
Lindbergh's lone landing strip.
Anticipating the Hawker's exit from the runway, a Lindbergh
controller cleared Southwest Flight 1626 for takeoff, officials said.
As the Boeing 737 gained speed, the Hawker remained on the west end of
the runway, where it had briefly stopped because of a mechanical
problem.
The controller radioed the Southwest pilot to abort the takeoff,
but it was too late to stop the plane without jeopardizing passenger
safety, officials said.
Both FAA and union officials described the controller as a longtime
employee with a good safety record.
Davis said the controller had been working 6 days a week because of
staffing strains at Lindbergh.
Fifteen fully certified controllers staff the tower along with five
trainees. The FAA says the facility has a designated staffing range of
14 to 18 controllers.
Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, has requested a Congressional
investigation into the incident. The last recorded incursion at
Lindbergh was in late 2003.
Senator Boxer. And so, you weren't aware of it. But I will
get this over to you, sir, and I would like it if you could
please get back to me on that.
I have one more question, and then I am done. And this one
is to Mr. Gros. Mr. Gros, you served as the assistant to Mary
Peters? Is that not right?
Mr. Gros. Senator, I was her Deputy Chief of Staff.
Senator Boxer. Deputy Chief of Staff?
Mr. Gros. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. And during that time, we had some
controversy over the granting--I'm sorry, the denial of the
waiver to California. I see you are shaking your head, and you
know about this issue. Now, it has been reported that you were
involved in the lobbying campaign conducted by DOT officials
last year in which you were contacting Governors and Members of
Congress, seeking to generate opposition to the California
waiver request.
You have been quoted as saying that, within DOT, the people
involved in the effort were Secretary Peters, yourself, and
five other DOT staffers, but you have been unclear about the
involvement of others in the Executive Branch. And I think it
is significant exactly how the lobbying effort got started. Can
you tell us who else, outside of DOT, was involved?
Mr. Gros. Senator, thanks for the question. It is my
understanding that the Secretary had conversations with the EPA
Administrator. But apart from that, ma'am, I cannot tell you
who else was involved.
Senator Boxer. OK, do you know if the White House was
involved? The Vice President's office? CEQ? EPA? Did you ever
talk to people in those agencies during the time you were
lobbying Members of Congress and Governors and others?
Mr. Gros. Senator, I did not.
Senator Boxer. You don't know?
Mr. Gros. I am sorry, ma'am?
Senator Boxer. You don't know?
Mr. Gros. I don't know what kind of communication----
Senator Boxer. Did you ever have e-mail conversations with
anyone in the President's office or the Vice President's office
or at the CEQ?
Mr. Gros. Ma'am, I personally did not. No.
Senator Boxer. OK. Did you ever have phone call
conversations with them?
Mr. Gros. I am sorry, ma'am. Are you saying do I ever or
did I?
Senator Boxer. Did you? Did you during this period?
Mr. Gros. Did I? Thank you.
Senator Boxer. In other words, I assume Secretary Peters
gave you your instructions to do what you did?
Mr. Gros. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. But you never spoke to anyone other than her
about it?
Mr. Gros. No, ma'am. Not in that role, no.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I think it is just very important.
The reason I raise it is that it is not appropriate, nor within
the traditions of our government, for an agency to lobby
another agency and to gin up Members of Congress. This is a
very serious point. So I am going to send you a letter, just
for you to put this in writing, and I do thank you very much
for letting us know in the past what occurred at that time. And
we will keep in touch with you.
And thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you very much and now recognize
Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret that
I didn't note before your incredible record, which I note with
envy, of 15,000 votes, and I congratulate you for that. I will
need to work twice as hard as I have to get 15,000 votes. And
they have been good votes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sturgell, 70 percent more controllers left the agency
last year than FAA predicted. This year, they are already
leaving the agency at a rate 40 percent higher than last year.
Is FAA facing a crisis at all?
Mr. Sturgell. Mr. Chairman--I am sorry, Mr. Lautenberg,
the----
Senator Lautenberg. No, that is all right. I liked it. I
like the sound.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sturgell. We had 828 retirements last year. We had
projected 700. This year, we are projecting a similar amount of
retirements in the neighborhood of 800. And right now, the rate
of retirements is running about the same as last year.
Senator Lautenberg. So it will be running higher than
expected?
Mr. Sturgell. We are projecting 800 in our workforce plan
that will be coming out shortly. But it is running at about the
same rate as last year, which was 828.
Senator Lautenberg. Right, which was not filled. Am I
correct? The hiring schedule for last year was not met?
Mr. Sturgell. We actually exceeded our end-of-year staffing
number last year by 67. And this year, we are going to increase
the workforce by a net gain of 256. And the budget that just
came out for 2009 has a further net increase of 306
controllers.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, let me read you what I have
found. 2007, FAA projected retirements at 947. The actual
retirements were 1,622. Do you challenge that figure?
Mr. Sturgell. I do. I don't think that is a retirement
number. I am not sure what that number is. Maybe it is total
attrition, but I would certainly be willing to go over the
numbers with you and show you our data.
Senator Lautenberg. And this year, your retirement
projection is what?
Mr. Sturgell. We are going to be releasing our new
workforce plan in March, and I think the number is right around
806 retirements for Fiscal Year 2008. I think we will be hiring
just about as many as we did last year, which is somewhere a
little bit over 1,800.
Senator Lautenberg. There is a substantial difference in
what your report suggests. Did FAA--you were Deputy
Administrator since when?
Mr. Sturgell. Since March 2003 until September 2007.
Senator Lautenberg. Do you remember the experience of 2003
in terms of hiring, or how many people did you hire in the year
2003? Do you know?
Mr. Sturgell. I don't recall offhand.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I can tell you. It was the Fiscal
Year 2004, so it was at the end of 2003. You hired 13. And the
number that was--that retired was substantially higher than
that. And we have had difficulty in keeping up the statistics
that give us a degree of comfort.
We are often told, and I had many discussions with Ms.
Blakey about this, I would check with the towers and see what
they have had. Do you have the population at Newark in front of
you?
Mr. Sturgell. I do have Newark in front of me.
Senator Lautenberg. How many controllers do you see there?
Mr. Sturgell. As of December 22, we have a total of 37.
Senator Lautenberg. Thirty-seven.
Mr. Sturgell. And I believe----
Senator Lautenberg. Fully trained?
Mr. Sturgell. No, they are not all fully trained. I think
today we have 38.
Senator Lautenberg. How many?
Mr. Sturgell. Today, I think we have 27 CPCs, and we have 2
CPC-ITs fully trained from other facilities that are now at
Newark.
Senator Lautenberg. How many should that tower have, Mr.
Sturgell?
Mr. Sturgell. Our range for that tower is 30 to 36.
Senator Lautenberg. FPLs?
Mr. Sturgell. That is a mix of CPC, CPC-ITs, and
developmentals.
Senator Lautenberg. Is that what you would like to see
continue there, that ratio?
Mr. Sturgell. The ratio will improve as people move through
the training.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, but we are losing them fairly
quickly throughout the system. So you have to make up for that
in addition to being able to get the training that is
necessary. How long does it take to train a controller?
Mr. Sturgell. At Newark tower, it is coming in at less than
2 years now.
Senator Lautenberg. No, but in the total development of a
new controller? There is time in the academy.
Mr. Sturgell. Total time right now, based on the latest
results we are seeing, has our tower controllers coming in at
under 2 years and our en route controllers coming in at under 3
years. Previously, it had taken 2 to 3 years in the tower, 3 to
5 years in the en route center.
Since 2004, when we have had our controller workforce plan,
we have known that training was going to be key to execute. Our
simulators are helping, and a more focused effort on tracking
training in general is helping. So, at this point, training and
executing on that training, to me, is key in this workforce.
Senator Lautenberg. You make a blanket statement, if I
understand you correctly, that you are right on schedule, that
all of the towers are populated by the trained controllers that
they should have, including the newer of those in training. Are
you willing to make the statement here that you are fully
staffed as you should be?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator Lautenberg, as I indicated to Senator
Boxer, there are about two dozen facilities where we are
focused on and where we would like to be in better shape than
we are today.
Senator Lautenberg. So there----
Mr. Sturgell. But I think broadly speaking, we are doing
OK. This is going to be a tough, tough transition. It is a
workforce that is retiring, mainly those who were hired after
the PATCO strike.
Senator Lautenberg. Have we--did we anticipate the number
of retirements accurately, do you think, over the last couple
of years?
Mr. Sturgell. We have not predicted them as accurately as I
would have liked. We have gotten better and better each year.
Senator Lautenberg. OK, accurate is accurate. And Mr.
Sturgell, even former Administrator Blakey admitted that her
refusal to work with air traffic controllers and negotiate a
new agreement on pay and working conditions led to a mass
exodus of controllers. And yet, it doesn't seem that FAA has
learned from that mistake.
What are you doing for recruiting and retention incentives?
Are you listening to the employees at the bargaining table or
to obtain a voluntary agreement with them?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator Lautenberg, we have a number of
things we are doing to improve relationships with the air
traffic controller workforce. I have personally met with the
NATCA president several times recently. I have directed our
chief operating officer and the vice presidents for the Air
Traffic Organization to do so. And they are having related
meetings on safety issues as well.
Senator Lautenberg. So relations could be better, could
have been better over the period of recent years?
Mr. Sturgell. We are working on improving our relations
with the workforce.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, that says, no matter how
carefully the words are planted, if you are working to improve
it, it must have been deficient in the past. It is fair to say
it wasn't enough.
Mr. Sturgell. Well, we have had some very tough issues with
that workforce.
Senator Lautenberg. In 2006, Lexington, Kentucky, the crash
that took 49 lives, the pilots did not have the most recent
published information about runway layouts, which it said
contributed to the crash. And why did the FAA change flight
departure headings out of Newark airport before even publishing
the new information? Do they make changes without forewarning
or providing the knowledge to pilots and those interested
parties, controllers, et cetera, before they make changes?
Mr. Sturgell. That is not always the case, Senator. As a
pilot myself, it is not unusual to get a take off Runway 5,
turn right to 0-8-0.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, but you are carrying yourself,
perhaps another person in the airplane. And changes can be made
more easily, I think, in the kind of flying that you did. But
now we are talking about passenger aircraft, and we are talking
about the responsibility to make sure that they are----
Mr. Sturgell. This was flying with United Airlines as a
commercial pilot. Again, it is not unusual to just get a
departure heading after takeoff. Specifically, at Newark, in
terms of publishing the procedure, that is in the process now.
We have not implemented all of the departure headings. So--
--
Senator Lautenberg. They may not have implemented all of
them, but they have implemented many of them. And we are still
waiting to see what kind of material is being given out so
that, as far in advance as possible, the pilots are alerted to
the changes that are being made.
Mr. Sturgell. I will send you the latest on the date we
intend to publish the procedures. But again, it is not unusual
to just get a departure heading after taking off.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, but several planes have gone the
wrong way out of Newark because of the changes. Are you aware
of that?
Mr. Sturgell. I am not aware of that.
Senator Lautenberg. Please check that, Mr. Sturgell.
Mr. Sturgell. I will.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank you.
Senator Thune?
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Sturgell, Mr. Gros, thank you again for your
service, and I want to begin by saying that on behalf of our
constituents, in most cases, want to make sure that Members of
Congress can identify with their circumstances and feel their
pain, so to speak. And when it comes to airline service, that
is one area where most of us, particularly those of us who
travel back and forth on a regular basis, can relate and have,
on many occasions, sat in terminals and with our constituents,
many of whom expect us to be able to do something about their
plight.
But I do want to say, and I think that it has already been
emphasized here with respect to the statistics last year and
how those square with history, that most of us, I think a lot
of these things tend to be weather-related. And certainly
nobody wants anybody to take any risks that would jeopardize or
put anybody in a situation that is unsafe, and that is not
controllable.
And yet these statistics, the weather hasn't changed. The
weather in South Dakota is pretty predictable. In the winter,
it is going to snow. And it is going to blow pretty much year
round. And in summer, it is going to rain.
So, but the fact that these statistics continue to slip and
deteriorate over time suggest that many of the factors adding
to delays are factors that are controllable. And that is where
I think we really have to--we need to be focusing on the
performance. And a 75 percent performance on-time arrival for
any other industry, that is a D, if you were scoring it if you
were a professor in college. And any other business that was
only able to provide on-time service 75 percent of the time
probably would be out of business.
And I guess the thing that concerns me about the airline
industry generally is there seems to be sort of an acceptance
of mediocrity. And that is very, very troubling. And I think
that these factors, and I will associate myself with the
comments from the Senator from Alaska, when it comes to pilots
not being available or those types of issues, those are issues
that, in my view, are in most cases within the control of the
airline.
And so, that is just a general comment. And I hope that the
airlines, of course, who I am sure are listening, would take
note of the importance of improving on those statistics and
hopefully restoring what I would call, I guess, a culture of
excellence when it comes to the delivery of this very important
service.
Because there is so much that rides on that--productivity.
When people are stalled out, things don't get done. Anymore
travel has become--when people ask me, always when you talk in
front of a group, people ask you what is the best part and the
worst part about your job. And I always answer the worst part
is getting to and from it. And that has, unfortunately, I think
become the reality for way too many people in this country.
But given that fact, and I hope that this can be improved
upon, but I also think it is important if that is going to be
the state of play in the airline industry that consumers need
to know who is good and who is not, who is getting there on-
time and who is not.
And I introduced a bill a while back that would require a
certain amount of reporting for those flights that are delayed,
those flights that are chronically canceled on a flight-by-
flight basis. And I think it is important for consumers to
know, so at least they can make informed choices. When they go
in, they are booking a flight, that is the type of data that
needs to be available.
Now what the airlines will tell you, and they are correct,
is that that data is available. But I think it needs to be
available in a more usable form to people who are purchasing
tickets.
And so, I would--I am going to continue to work with the
FAA reauthorization to see that we get some of those provisions
put in that require the airlines to at least inform consumers
so they can make choices about which flights on a consistent
basis are being delayed or canceled and those that aren't.
Because I think it would go a long ways toward helping make the
airlines a little bit more responsive as well. I do want to--
and I guess I just say that as a general statement, and I
solicit your comment on it.
But I do want to follow up with a question that I mentioned
earlier, and that has to do with this whole issue of airline
consolidation. Because I think that, and you can argue, I am
sure, both ways on this and I have heard arguments that in my
area of the country that we would benefit from having a
consolidated airline that has perhaps economies of scale and is
a stronger airline financially in terms of both routes and
prices and everything else. But that is not the widely held
view among consumers.
The widely held view among consumers is that fewer airlines
means less competition and, therefore, fewer options and
perhaps higher prices. And so, there is a discussion about some
mergers that would affect my State in particular and a lot of
other states in my region of the country. And I guess I would
be interested in your thoughts about whether you see that as a
good thing or a bad thing when it comes to service, when it
comes to price, and just overall quality for people who travel
in rural areas.
So if I could get you to comment--I would direct this, I
guess, to you, Mr. Administrator--first, on the need for more
information for passengers and, second, the whole issue of
consolidation, how that might impact service into rural areas?
Mr. Sturgell. Thank you, Senator. On the need for more
information, I do believe the Department is looking at options
along the line that you are talking about. So I think there may
be movement in that direction. I don't recall specifically what
has been proposed or what may be proposed to date. But I
understand your concerns, and I will pass those on to the
Department.
On the merger issue, as you said, folks can argue either
way. It is probably not appropriate for me to comment on it.
The FAA's focus would be on the operational changes involved in
many types of mergers. I will point out that there has been a
number of mergers over the years. Republican to Northwest, and
USAir had a number of mergers.
In the long run, what we have seen over the last couple of
decades is that prices continue to go down because it is a very
competitive industry. As for the FAA's role, again, our focus
would be on the operational changes involved in a merger. Of
course, the Department of Justice will be looking at the
competition issues along with the Department of Transportation,
which goes to your concerns about small community service.
Senator Thune. I appreciate it. Mr. Gros, I don't know if
you want to comment on either or I am sure you hear from folks
up here quite often on issues related to service and
information. So if you have any comment on either or both of
those issues, I would be interested in hearing that as well.
Mr. Gros. Senator, thank you. I have heard from a lot of
Member's offices regarding consumer issues as they relate to
the airlines.
Senator Thune. I hope not just my office.
Mr. Gros. Your offices, plural.
Senator Thune. OK, thank you.
Mr. Gros. I think it is a little premature to talk about
where consolidations are going to end up. Bobby is right. I
think that when the government takes into account all of the
consolidations, we will certainly take into account the effects
on consumers and small communities.
Senator Thune. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, again, I
appreciate your answers and I would just urge you to continue
to focus, and I know you are, in trying to address these
problems with congestion on the East Coast and into New York
that create ripple effects throughout the entire system. But
this is an issue that is creating a tremendous amount of
frustration among the traveling public, as I think you know.
And we certainly continue to hear about that.
And as I said before, there is no question that a lot, not
a lot, but some of this is caused by circumstances and factors
that are outside the control of the airlines, that being the
weather. But to the degree that there are issues that are
within the control, these things just need to be addressed. And
the numbers and the statistics, particularly in this last year,
are just unacceptable.
So, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Rockefeller?
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
talk about the 4,000 employees that have received e-mails that
they are going to be laid off on March 1. Now you are required
to give them written notice, and I am not going to argue about
an e-mail versus written notice. But it is serious because
these people come from your research, your engineering, your
development division, your facilities, your equipment division.
Your air traffic controllers are, I believe, under contract
until sometime in the middle of 2009. So, in theory, their
situation is different. We have to, Mr. Chairman--and we have
to do it in the Finance Committee--we have to make an extension
because this is a very severe crisis.
You cannot address 4,000 people by e-mail and have them
facing layoffs March 1 because, in effect, it is laying them
off right then. Their psychology changes, their attitude at
work changes, and they are frightened, as they should be. And
this is not your fault. This is our fault.
We have to work out with Senator Baucus and the Finance
Committee a way of extending--we have massive budget problems,
and I won't get into the reasons why. I would love to, but I
won't. We have to get the extension more than a couple of
months.
The Chairman of the Finance Committee only wants to make
the extension for these 4,000 employees to be paid for a couple
of months, and that doesn't work. He thinks it does. I don't.
So he and I and Kay Bailey Hutchison need to talk to make sure
that at least it is extended to the end of the fiscal year.
That, in itself, doesn't provide a whole lot of comfort, but it
is probably all that we can do in this particular year. And we
will have to scramble for the money for that.
But my question, my first question to you--I only have
two--is do you detect an effect, and I want you to answer this
to your own advantage, do you detect an effect on 4,000 FAA
employees not having received a pink slip, but having received
an e-mail saying they will be out of a job as of March 1st? Do
you detect, what do you see from that?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, thank you very much for raising this
issue. It is probably my most immediate concern at the agency.
I was just trying to be as inclusive as I could to our
workforce. That e-mail will be followed up with a letter of
notification probably at the end of next week.
I think I owe it to give the employees affected an
opportunity to start taking care of their personal business,
should this occur, which I hope it will not----
Senator Rockefeller. But by contract you have to do that?
Mr. Sturgell. We are required to do it, yes. And I think I
need to do it. It affects 4,000 people who handle our capital
programs, people involved in our research, and people involved
in our airports program. As you said, the latest extension,
which is our fourth now, does not extend the taxes; it does not
have contract authority; and it does not have expenditure
authority from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund beyond March
1.
These people are paid, by law, out of the Trust Fund. So I
can't expend money from it, and therefore, I can't pay them.
And that becomes a real problem for us. Because then, at that
point, if we don't have expenditure authority, we are just
working with funds from the General Fund, which--we have about
$1.7 billion, which will get us a couple of months. I will
probably have to take some measures in terms of making the
agency operate more leanly, which would be things like reducing
hiring, and just general tightening up all around to try and
make that money last if we don't see movement to correct the
problem.
I appreciate that you are focused on it and the Chairman is
focused on it, and I hope we can work together to get this done
as quickly as possible.
Senator Rockefeller. OK. We will do that. We will do that
because anything else is unconscionable.
This is less to your advantage, but it will tell me
something about you. On April 23, The Washington Post had an
article called ``FAA Has Some Unhappy Controllers.'' Now you
have a lot of people sort of become unhappy because they are
under pressure and because they are underfunded. They are
understaffed. They may not have the machinery and equipment
that they need.
But unhappy controllers is a difficult situation. What The
Post found was that 17 percent of FAA employees in general,
only 17 percent, said that they trust FAA management. And that
61 percent disagreed with the statement that the FAA ``is
committed to employee concerns.'' That is far and away above, I
would think, the average and, to me, is a very dangerous
situation.
I won't get into general aviation and what you are going to
do about it, but I sure will when we have our hearing next
week. And I will come after you really hard. But how do you--
looking at the prospect of this job, how do you, what works in
your mind? You have got quite a turnaround of morale to
accomplish. It's not all money. It's probably attention, visits
to the field, equipment, whatever. Tell me why I am reading
those statistics.
Mr. Sturgell. Senator, if I recall those statistics, I
think they relate to an annual employee attitude survey, which
we've done in the past, and it has over 100 questions. We have
done this survey every other year or so. And in the years in
between, we do a much shorter survey.
I will just tell you that, coming out of that survey, we
did develop action plans for our various lines of business to
address the concerns that we saw. These plans go to
initiatives, which relate to better communications, better
rewards for performance, as well as better training programs to
develop leaders at all levels of the agency.
I also have talked to folks about making personal visits
out to facilities. It is something that I need to do a better
job of. I wish I could get out of D.C. to these facilities more
often than I have been able to. And I think there are a number
of things we can do, for instance, we are most recently
developing a child care subsidy and a tuition reimbursement
plan, which we plan to roll out in the agency here shortly.
So we are taking steps, as a result of those surveys and
other feedback we get, to improve the attitudes. I also think
pay is important as well, and we do have a very highly paid
workforce, and rightly so.
Senator Rockefeller. You have given me some answers. They
don't tell me all that I need to know. Would you do me the
courtesy of writing me a letter? It can be confidential. I
won't release it or use it, and I won't use it in this
Committee, but I would like to know. Visits by you are nice,
the pay is already there, and the discontent is huge despite
all of this.
So it, obviously, has to be a much larger factor. It has to
have deep roots. It may have to do with the uncertainty of the
history of the FAA in recent years because we keep cutting
their budget and asking you to do more, as passengers and
airplanes increase. But I would like to have from you to me a
confidential letter in which you open yourself up to what you
think will be required to change those numbers around.
Mr. Sturgell. I would be glad to do that.
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Klobuchar?
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing. Mr. Sturgell, Mr. Gros, as you know, Minnesota is the
home of a proud airline history, with Northwest Airlines, Sun
Country, the childhood home of Charles Lindbergh. And so, we
are very interested in what you have to say here.
I just wanted to follow up a little bit what Senator Thune
had been talking about, about the FAA's role in any merger
approvals. And you said that, Mr. Sturgell, they focused on
operational concerns. And I think you and I have talked before
about the safety concerns. Are there any examples you have of
past mergers where the FAA stood in and said there is such a
reduction of employees that this leads to safety concerns or
that changes have been made that lead to safety concerns?
Mr. Sturgell. I don't recall any, and certainly there have
been none--since I have been at the agency. I do know right now
that we are working with USAirways on their merger, but just on
the operational side. So, no, to answer your question.
Senator Klobuchar. So how does it work? Do they come and
present to you plans of the merger and----
Mr. Sturgell. They do. And our certificate management
offices work closely with them to discuss things like the
adequacy of personnel, their maintenance facilities, how they
are going to be merging certificates and their operations
specifications and those kinds of details.
Senator Klobuchar. All right. I also want to follow up on
some of the questions about delays and that 2007 was the worst
year for delays. As you know, I am supportive of funding the
modernization program in any way we can and to figure out how
to ramp this up. But given what we have going on right now,
some experts have said that congestion and delay is, in large
part, due to the scheduling of flights during peak morning
hours and evening rush hours.
Do you think that if the carriers voluntarily cut back on
their flights during that time, we are going to see a decrease
in congestion and delay? What do you think would be a good
remedy for this in our current situation before we do the
modernization?
Mr. Sturgell. I think there are a number of factors overall
in the delay issue. And certainly, there is a ``good news/bad
news'' story here. The good news is the industry is back and
the passengers are back from the effects of 9/11. But as you
said, the bad news is delays are up, and there are a number of
things involved in delays, besides the weather, which accounts
for the bulk of it. A lot of it has to do with runway capacity
and new runways coming on line. A lot of it has to do with
scheduling. A lot of it has to do with modernization and the
FAA's operations themselves.
So it is a picture that involves everybody. And as far as
scheduling flights, I will just take, as an example, what we
have done at Kennedy recently. They had several hours where the
number of aircraft scheduled exceeded the ability of that
airport to handle. We worked with the carriers in the fall and
they reduced flights voluntarily to an overall average of about
83 an hour during the peak periods, which is what we see the
airport being able to handle today.
But what has happened is for next summer, there are going
to be more than 100 new flights at JFK, and that is because
these flights were redistributed to other times of the day
where there was less demand. Our modeling shows that we are
going to get somewhere between a 10 and 15 percent reduction in
delays there, which is substantial. At the same time, we are
going to have more flights for the flying public.
Senator Klobuchar. One of the things I have heard is that
if you put these caps on, it is going to cause major carriers
to cut back on some of the less profitable routes. Do you think
that is a potential repercussion from this?
Mr. Sturgell. I am not aware of that happening with next
summer's schedule. And I will just say I do think--I don't like
the caps. I don't think that is where we should be going as a
nation or a government or an industry. I think we should be
doing the hard things that Mayor Daley and Senator Durbin are
doing out in Chicago and building new runways, and we should be
moving forward on modernization.
The FAA should be doing its best in this as well. Caps are
an easy solution, but I don't think they are the right
solution. I think the Secretary is actively looking for ways to
come up with better solutions.
Senator Klobuchar. Just one follow up about the air traffic
controllers. There was a lot of discussion about the hiring and
trying to get new recruits in. Could you talk about what you do
to keep people employed after they are recruited?
Because I have heard there are some concerns that you have
some rate, a high rate, of people leaving once they start, or
the job isn't what they thought and it is not working out. So
could you talk a little bit about what you could do to make
them stay on?
Mr. Sturgell. Certainly pay is an issue, and I think our
new hires are being paid very competitively. At the end of 5
years, their cash compensation is in the mid-$90,000s. They
still top out well above the GS-14 level. So I think just from
a pure pay perspective, there is a lot of incentive to stay
around.
Controllers do have a very substantial early retirement and
benefits package, which is very attractive as well.
Senator Klobuchar. But do you have a number of them leaving
after they start?
Mr. Sturgell. We have training failures, which we expect.
Last year, they ran about 13 percent. This year, they are
running a little bit over 5 percent at our facilities. At the
Academy, it is a little bit less than 5 percent, but that is
not atypical.
Senator Klobuchar. Are they placed right in hub airports,
or are they allowed to go to smaller airports first, or how
does that work? And would that change their job situation and
get people to be retained more?
Mr. Sturgell. It is a mix of both. And just for background,
I think 93 percent of our new hires from last year came from
either our collegiate training initiative or CTI schools or
from the military, former air traffic controllers or veterans.
Seven percent were recruited from various local job recruiting
activities we do around the Nation.
Regarding these CTI schools, we went from 9 or what do we
have--we are up to 23 now, with 1 in one Minnesota, I believe,
and a number of them around the country. These graduates
typically have 2- to 4-year degrees with an aviation
specialization, and so they come into the workforce very
capable, and very qualified.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator McCaskill?
STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE McCASKILL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I have paid
attention in the news, I don't think that most Americans have
put all of these stories together. But let me briefly go over
what has happened just in less than a year.
July 11, 2007, a jet came within 100 feet of a taxiing jet
while landing in Fort Lauderdale. August 16, 2007, two planes
carrying over 200 people came within 37 feet of each other.
December 6, 2007, two jets came within 300 feet of each other
at Newark. January 2, 2008, a jet had to abort a landing in
order to avoid hitting another jet in Houston. January 11th, a
jet came within 1,500 feet of a taxiing jet while landing at
Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson. January 16, 2008, two jets came
within 600 feet of each other vertically in the airspace above
Newark.
I have a horrible fear that something dramatic and tragic
is going to happen, and I have a sense of urgency about this.
And I would like to give you a minute to try to put into words
what sense of urgency you have.
Mr. Sturgell. Senator McCaskill, I would first like to
start with the context that, we handle about 62 million
operations a year. And as many articles recently have shown,
this has been the safest 5-year period in the history of
transportation most recently. The incidents to which you are
referring, I believe, are runway incursion incidents. This
agency, over the last 5 to 7 years, has done a tremendous job
in reducing the number of serious runway incursions. Last year,
we had a total of 24. And if I get the number right, I think
only eight of those involved commercial carriers.
That said, this is an area again, I think I stated earlier,
like a lot of our safety areas, where we as the FAA, we as the
government, we as the industry simply cannot let up on. And we
have to continually improve and continually drive that number
down.
Former Administrator Blakey and myself initiated a call to
action last August on runway incursions. We have had great
response from the community. We have included not just the
carriers, but the airports, and the labor unions. We have had
follow up meetings throughout the fall.
I just had a telephone call with 40 of the carrier CEOs
about 2 to 3 weeks ago. We are going to keep at this particular
area. It is going to be a tremendous focus of mine whether
confirmed or not. So----
Senator McCaskill. And while we have had a--I get your
point that the serious incursions decreased last year, we have
had a 12 percent increase, and we are now near the record high
of 2001, isn't that correct, in overall incursion incidents?
Mr. Sturgell. The overall number of incursions, when you
include all categories, did increase. And you will see a
further increase this year because we have changed the
definition, moving to the definition that ICAO, the
International Civil Aviation Organization, supports, which will
make our reporting consistent with other countries around the
world.
So previous surface incidents that we did not classify as
any type of category of runway incursion, we are now including
in those overall numbers.
Senator McCaskill. When did that change go into effect?
Mr. Sturgell. That change went into effect this fiscal
year.
Senator McCaskill. OK.
Mr. Sturgell. So they will go up. I will tell you what is
frustrating to me personally as a pilot about this particular
area are the instances that we are seeing where controllers are
saying the right thing, pilots are hearing the right thing and
reading back the right thing, but then they are doing something
different. It is a human factors element that is present in a
lot of these safety issues that is very tough to get at.
Senator McCaskill. Do you believe that controller fatigue
is a contributing factor?
Mr. Sturgell. I think, when you look at the NTSB's
recommendations on fatigue as a result of its investigation
into some of these incidents, the Board was particularly
concerned about two things. One was a particular schedule that
we have been using for decades at the FAA, which we refer to as
a 2-2-1. It rolls your body clock forward throughout the week;
but it is a schedule that our controllers like for a variety of
reasons.
The second thing that the Board identified was the need to
have mandatory and recurrent training on personal fatigue
management strategies. So, again, back to the pilot delays. The
transportation industry in all modes depends on people being
responsible during their time off, whether you are a commuting
pilot coming in or whether you are an air traffic controller
doing a quick turnaround. So we depend on people showing up for
work rested, and we are going to carry through on those
recommendations and take training strategies out to the
workforce, both at the Academy and at our facilities as well.
Senator McCaskill. I take it from your answer that you do
think fatigue could be a contributing factor or is a
contributing factor. Do you think it is a contributing factor
to the incursion rate?
Mr. Sturgell. I think the Board has identified fatigue in
some of the ones they have looked at. And again, if you look at
the specific events they analyzed, it comes down to managing
your rest on your time off.
So are there incidents where fatigue has been involved in
the investigation process? Yes, there have been.
Senator McCaskill. Well, if controller fatigue is on the
NTSB's Most Wanted List and GAO has cited fatigue as a major
issue, I know--and this has been covered by some of the other
questioning, but I want to make sure that I get your
commitment. There has been a recommendation that you work
collaboratively directly with the air traffic controllers
association. And I want to hear your commitment that you are
willing to work directly with the air traffic controllers
association to deal with this issue of fatigue.
Mr. Sturgell. The Board has identified fatigue as an issue
in all modes of transportation. We certainly do intend to
follow up on the recommendations we have received. We have had
one meeting that both I believe NATCA and I believe PASS also
attended, and we will continue to work together with them on a
work group on these recommendations. That is my commitment to
you, yes.
Senator McCaskill. Great. Because the impression that I got
from reading all of the backup material for the hearing today
was that you had not been willing to work one-on-one with the
controllers on this particular issue, as NTSB had recommended.
And what you are saying is that is no longer the case, that you
are now willing to work with them one-on-one on this issue?
Mr. Sturgell. My belief is there was a meeting in December
with the FAA people that are involved in these recommendations,
and that meeting did include representatives from PASS and
NATCA.
Senator McCaskill. Terrific. Thank you very much. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Snowe?
STATEMENT OF HON. OLYMPIA J. SNOWE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE
Senator Snowe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Mr. Sturgell, welcome. I congratulate you on your
nomination as FAA Administrator. You certainly come to this
position with an impressive resume with your many years at the
FAA, as well as having had experience in all sectors of
aviation, both commercial and military.
So we welcome you to the Committee here today. And Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include my entire
statement in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Snowe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from Maine
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your steadfast leadership in
facilitating the nomination before this Committee today--that of Robert
Sturgell to be the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). First of all, Mr. Sturgell, I would like to congratulate you on
your nomination. Given your impressive resume during your many years at
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and prior to that, in both
commercial and military aviation, there can be no doubt that the
Administration has indeed selected an accomplished nominee.
Unquestionably, you possess the professional acumen and broad
knowledge-base central to understanding the vast complexities that are
part and parcel of the world's busiest and largest aerospace and
aviation sector. I thank you for your continued willingness to serve.
However, I must admit, I do not envy the tremendous challenges you
will face if confirmed. As you are well aware, the reauthorization of
the Federal Aviation Administration has regrettably stalled here in the
Senate. Our challenge is to resolve the handful of outstanding issues,
jumpstart the process, and move the bill forward because, our aviation
network, which is nearly at its breaking point, hinges on our taking
appropriate, swift action. Time is of the essence as the lifeblood of
our economy--our capacity to transport goods and people efficiently and
effectively from destination to destination--threatens to become
paralyzed and imperiled.
I believe that nothing less than a transformation of the FAA
culture is required to usher in a new era of aviation in this country,
and accomplishing that goal will be the task placed in your hands as
you manage, guide, and shepherd that change. For too long, the FAA has
been in the practice of patching holes, rather than confronting
systemic demands that place undue pressure on the entire aviation
sector. Preeminent among these demands is the implementation of the
NextGen air traffic management system that is on time and on budget. An
enormous undertaking, the successful development of this system will
reduce delays, improve efficiency, and accommodate the projected
increases in air travelers by allowing for a greater number of
aircraft. The phenomenon of the Very Light Jet, for example, is
symptomatic of the necessity for a new, more flexible approach. In
fact, orders are coming in for these aircraft faster than they can be
built! And so, it is imperative that we create a process for handling
the anticipated future growth in aircraft and passengers.
And make no mistake, we cannot afford to slacken or lessen our
efforts in the interim--far from it--as the FAA must improve upon its
management of an antiquated ground-based radar, curb and even reverse
the rash of retirements further debilitating the already-decimated
ranks of our experienced air traffic controllers, lower the record
number of delays and cancellations, and restore customer service
standards that have hit rock bottom. Confronting any one of these
issues alone would prove to be daunting task, but addressing them all
together is undeniably a herculean challenge--one which, if confirmed,
you will be entrusted to accept and meet.
There are also more immediate, front-burner topics which I would
like to address. For example, currently, the Administration's effort to
relieve the pressure at New York City's three major airports is front
and center in the media. While I'm certain many of my colleagues have
questions about that particular plan, it reflects the
interconnectedness of our national aviation network. Moreover, my home
state of Maine has been following the Administration's plan with great
interest, especially deciphering the impact that flight caps or
congestion pricing could have on any non-hub communities. With more
than a third of all U.S. air traffic using New York City airspace, I
believe any rule established by the FAA and the Administration in
advance of the 2008 summer travel season must consider the
ramifications on service at smaller communities such as Portland,
Maine.
Additionally, these mid-sized cities and towns are also suffering
from acute understaffing at air traffic control towers. While the FAA
has admitted to some trouble with staffing levels at major hub airports
such as O'Hare in Chicago or Hartsfield in Atlanta, a very real problem
exists at towers such as those in Bangor and Portland. To make matters
worse, the FAA has repeatedly underestimated, not only the numbers of
retirees among the controller workforce, but also the willingness of
eligible retirees to remain with the FAA. The fact is as staffing
levels diminish, fewer and fewer qualified controllers are manning the
towers in communities like Bangor--a pattern which jeopardizes safety
and increases fatigue among remaining controllers. It is all the more
paramount that we retain experienced controllers to train those
individuals being brought aboard by the FAA. Merely throwing cash
incentives at retiring controllers is a stop-gap measure at best, one
that perpetuates the band-aid approach in the short term.
Mr. Sturgell, you appear before the committee, having served in
nearly all sectors of aviation . . . U.S. naval pilot, commercial
pilot, advisor for the National Transportation Safety Board, aviation
lawyer, counsel and counselor to the previous FAA Administrator, Marion
Blakey, and now acting Administrator. We are truly fortunate to
consider a nominee with the depth and breadth of knowledge and
experience concerning aviation that you possess. It is my hope that you
can tackle and manage the burgeoning number of issues that have a
chokehold on our gridlocked air traffic system, and return efficiency,
adaptability and productivity to America's air travel. Our country and
our constituents deserve no less.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing the
positions of this very distinguished nominee.
Senator Snowe. Mr. Sturgell, and I want to reiterate some
of the issues that my colleagues have raised, most specifically
my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, with whom I have
joined to introduce the passenger bill of rights as part of the
FAA reauthorization that, regrettably, is stalled on the floor
of the Senate at a time in which this legislation should be
moving forward.
Pivotal moments, of course, facing the aviation industry
and certainly the FAA with a complexity of problems, it is
unfortunate that this legislation has stalled. But the
passenger bill of rights I think is the de minimis. It is the
bottom line, it is the minimum standards that we ought to
assert that the industry ought to meet.
I mean, they have had the opportunity for almost a decade
now with the Voluntary Agreement back in 1999, where they would
set minimum standards for passenger services. I mean, whether
it is food and water and minimum time where they have to stay
encamped on the plane on the tarmac, that hasn't happened.
And given the fact that it hasn't gotten better, I mean,
after we saw what happened even in December. Complaints were up
by more than 40 percent of the previous year. It was the
second-worst year on record in 2007. So, obviously, the airline
industry has a lot to do.
And I always maintain the amount of money people pay for
passenger tickets today, they don't get much in return in terms
of customer guarantees that they are going to get what they
paid for. They face endless delays, certainly not much food on
the aircraft, and not necessarily going to get to where they
want to go.
So what is the problem with the FAA insisting, requiring
the industry to meet these minimum standards? I mean, the fact
is states now, like New York, have already taken action. Other
states are following suit. I understand the states of
Washington, New Jersey, and Arizona are in the process of also
adopting some type of passenger bill of rights.
So, first of all, I would be interested to know, in your
position, whether or not the FAA would honor those laws that
are passed by individual states. Second, not preempting the
state laws. And third, whether or not you are prepared to
accept a certain standard and requiring that of the industry? I
mean, hopefully, we will pass that legislation because I think
the time has come.
We have given the industry, I think, a lengthy period of
time, almost a decade, to follow through on these commitments,
and I think these are basic issues that the industry ought to
be able to comply with. And if they can't, then we really have
to--I think we have to demand it.
Mr. Sturgell. Well, Senator, thank you. And I know you and
Senator Boxer have been focused on this particular issue, and
it largely rests with the department. And I am a little
disappointed that I am not as up to speed as I should be on the
particulars to which you are asking.
But I think generally what we are trying to do is we have a
proposal out that doesn't set specific requirements. We are
certainly looking at the comments that will be coming in,
though, and that we are working with the airlines. I know a
number of them have adopted plans now for chronic delays, long
delays on the tarmac.
The Secretary has recently put a task force together, which
will look at some of these issues. And with respect to the
state laws, again I think there are some Federal-state
preemption issues involved in that. But this is an area where I
would certainly be glad to go back and learn a little bit more
and then follow up with you on it.
Senator Snowe. Well, I just--I think the time has come. I
think it is long overdue, frankly. I mean, we all experience
many frustrations at the airports, but you really have the
opportunity to witness firsthand the desperate situations that
so many airline customers are faced with. And even the
Inspector General said that the Voluntary Agreement of 1999 has
been ineffective.
I mean, he issued a report last fall. Even in the hearing
that was held here in the Committee, he testified that things
have only gotten worse. So I don't see what the hesitancy is on
the part of the FAA to assert certain standards ought to be the
minimum we would require the industry, given the amount of
money, given the investments that the U.S. taxpayer makes with
respect to the aviation industry.
I mean, there is no question that the Federal Government
makes an enormous commitment to the aviation industry. So I
think we do have an obligation to ensure that they are
operating consistent with the rights of passengers. So I hope
that we don't make this a complex issue because it should be
basic issues, whether it is on food or water or the limited
amount of time that they should be required to stay on an
airplane if it is delayed and they are sitting out on the
tarmac.
I mean, I think that those are basic issues. Having
operating restrooms. I just don't see what the problem is when
it comes to those basic requirements. I mean, that should be
simple and agreeable, and they haven't been willing to do it.
The fact that some have and some haven't, we need a task force.
I don't know what we need a task force about at this point. I
really don't.
And you go into a store, you buy something. If it doesn't
work, you can return it. With the industry, that is not
necessarily so. These people are paying hundreds, if not
thousands, of dollars. Ruins vacations. I mean, just we know
the litany.
Now there are some things we can't control, like the
weather. We understand that. But we also know there is
overcongestion and the way in which these airlines have
scheduled their takeoffs. And we have seen that. In fact, you
indicated that in your own testimony before the House
Committee. That it is clear that the way the airlines are
scheduling today and the way they are operating it only is a
prescription for disaster.
So I hope that we can--I hope that you in your leadership
position can assert that leadership in making sure that it is
accomplished.
Mr. Sturgell. I will certainly be discussing this with the
Secretary and the Department.
Senator Snowe. Well, I appreciate that because I think the
FAA is at a point in time where you are facing a confluence of
events. And bureaucratic nature is not going to be helpful to
the process at a time you know the complex problems. And I
think that for too long, the FAA has had to just patch the
existing problems.
But we have got some systemic and fundamental issues that
have to be addressed, and certainly the FAA reauthorization
initiative is very important. But we have got other issues.
When we are seeing that retirement is debilitating an already-
decimated ranks of air traffic controllers, which is another
major issue.
And even in my State of Maine and both the city of Portland
and Bangor, I mean, Bangor has seven certified controllers and
four are able to retire today. But they are not able to
retire--I have met with them recently. They are not able to
retire because that would leave three of them, and there are
four pending trainees.
The same is true in the City of Portland. They have got 12.
They should have probably 16 to 20, given the standards. And
so, there are many waiting in the wings to retire. And yet
there are not a sufficient number of trainees available to
prepare so that they could retire. So that is another major
issue that I hope that you are going to be addressing during
the course of your tenure in an aggressive way.
Mr. Sturgell. I will, and we are doing that now. We have
hired over 1,800 controllers last year and will hire 1,800
again this year, Senator. It is critical that we execute now on
the training side.
Senator Snowe. Finally, I know that--I gather that you have
been part of this process evaluating what will be done in the
New York metropolitan area with the three major airports and
providing a cap. Have you been involved in that process?
Mr. Sturgell. I have.
Senator Snowe. Yes. And obviously, from the perspective of
my state and depending on airlines being able to go in and out
of those airports, are you considering the impact on smaller
areas and non-hub communities, for example, in terms of that
cap and the allocation of slots?
Mr. Sturgell. We are involved in the allocation of slots,
but the schedules themselves and the destinations are the
responsibility of the carriers. We will certainly monitor this.
We have not seen that kind of problem with the caps in Chicago.
I don't expect there to be those types of problems. And as I
said earlier, we are actually adding over 100 flights at JFK,
even though we lowered the maximum hourly operational rate.
Senator Snowe. So can those--can my commuters in Maine be
assured that they won't be negatively affected or adversely or
disproportionately affected, I should say, with respect to
those caps? Because that is a major issue. I mean, smaller
communities oftentimes are on the short end, and yet they are
contributing taxpayers and deserve the right to have access to
major airports and consistent airline schedules.
Mr. Sturgell. Again, Senator, the schedules, the
destinations themselves are the responsibility of the carriers.
I know the carriers are aware of the small community service
issue, and we will monitor it.
Senator Snowe. Well, OK. I would appreciate it. But I do
think the FAA does have a responsibility because every state
should have the opportunity to have some access to major
airports because there are only so many major airports, and you
have to fly there. And I do think it is important because it is
a public responsibility. It is not just simply a private
responsibility since the taxpayers are financing much of the
aviation industry and infrastructure that depends on it.
So I would hope that we would make sure that smaller
communities and rural communities and states are considered in
the context because it is only fair. Otherwise, if that is the
case, if you just deny them and ignore them and overlook them.
And I just think that that has to be considered in the
allocation. Because there have been so many times where there
have been proposals that would have adversely affected smaller
communities and states as a result of the effect of those
proposals.
Mr. Sturgell. Fair enough, Senator. I understand your
concern.
Senator Snowe. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Sturgell.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg?
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, I will try not to keep us
very much longer. I thank you for your patience, and I thank
Mr. Sturgell and Mr. Gros as well for continuing to stay with
us.
We discuss population for posts filled, and there is always
a disagreement, or as long as I can remember there is a
disagreement, between the number of full-performance
controllers and trainees and so forth. And you just talked
about hiring 1,800? How many a year did you say?
Mr. Sturgell. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. And when I talked before to you, we
used the term ``retirements.'' But that is not total attrition.
That is not total departures.
And when we examine the record and we look back at a time
when I had the opportunity to talk to Madam--to the
Administrator Blakey and I asked a question about working
conditions with air traffic controller workforce, there hadn't
been any negotiated agreement with the representatives of
NATCA, and Ms. Blakey said, ``I think the effect of the work
rules and pay that we put into place in September did cause an
uptick in retirements last fall.'' That was 2006. ``We saw
about a 25 percent increase. I think it was a negative reaction
on the part particularly of some of the controllers to that.''
One of the questions that has arisen, Mr. Sturgell, is the
management and the morale of FAA, and you were part of that
management, very frankly. And we look at things and you are--
you seem to be satisfied with your pace of replacements and so
forth.
But in Sunday's Washington Post, there was a story that
said about 14,857 controllers on the staff as of late December,
11,000 were certified controllers, or 74 percent of the
workforce. In 2000--now the period that we just used was 2007--
in 2000, we had 12,576 controllers, as contrasted to 11,026,
when there is a lot more activity now than there was then. They
were the fully certifieds out of 15,153 controllers in 2000,
about 83 percent of the workforce.
Now it is being said that we have 11,026, compared to
12,576; 74 percent of the workforce are fully trained--
substantially less than we had in 2000. And yet we can't seem
to get an agreement from you, Mr. Sturgell, that says that we
have got to do a heck of a lot more than we have.
Because there has not only been substantial retirement, but
departures for other reasons, including the changes in the work
rules. You were part of that, of the management team at that
time. So I think we have to get this squared away. And I would
like you to respond specifically to these comments made in the
GAO report and in The Washington Post.
I have a question about what we have done to provide the
safety mechanism that we should have. And it says here in the
GAO report, ``FAA is not following its order issued in 2002
that directs the Office of Runway Safety to coordinate and
monitor activities throughout the agency to ensure that runway
safety goals are met. The absence of coordination and national
leadership impedes further progress on runway safety because no
single office is taking charge of assessing the causes of
runway safety problems and taking the steps needed to address
these problems.''
How do you respond to that?
Mr. Sturgell. Senator Lautenberg, as I talked to Senator
McCaskill earlier, I think this is an area where you just can't
let up. I do believe there has been national leadership, and I
think that is why the number of serious runway incursions
declined over the last several years. But this--again, this is
an area where we are focused on, where we have meetings
together as an agency across the lines of business, where we
have reached out to the community, the associations, the
carriers----
Senator Lautenberg. Then why is it still--why are we still
in the situation that we are? That this report of very recent
vintage says that it hasn't been paid attention to. How do we
account for the differences of view here?
Mr. Sturgell. Well before that report came out, in the
summer, we had a call to action focusing on runway safety that
involved the carriers, and the labor unions. It involved FAA
personnel here at headquarters and in the regions. And again,
before the report came out, we were at 25 airports around the
country with runway safety action teams, and very shortly we
are going to be going to another 20 airports. And I expect this
year we are going to be doing things like approve investment
decisions for runway safety technology.
So----
Senator Lautenberg. Well, the report, the order, was issued
in 2002, half a dozen years ago, and it sounds like we are
still trying to play catch-up.
I have one more question, Mr. Chairman. That is the total
cost of the New Jersey and New York Airspace Redesign project,
do you know what that cost is going to be?
Mr. Sturgell. I believe it was $53 million over about a 9-
or 10-year period.
Senator Lautenberg. Has the agency done a cost-benefit
analysis and to this point in time?
Mr. Sturgell. We are not required to do the formal cost-
benefit analysis for airspace redesign projects, but again, the
cost we spent was $53 million. The benefits we are
conservatively estimating are $300 million in savings and a 20
percent delay reduction as compared to 2011.
Senator Lautenberg. Three hundred million dollars in
savings over what period of time, Mr. Sturgell? Three hundred
million dollars in savings?
Mr. Sturgell. Right. I think that is an annual number, but
I will have to get back to you on that.
Senator Lautenberg. And the total cost for this redesign
was?
Mr. Sturgell. Fifty-three million dollars.
Senator Lautenberg. Fifty-three million? I will tell you
what I would appreciate, I would ask you to submit it in
writing to me, please, so that we have it for the record.
Mr. Sturgell. I would be pleased to do that, yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for your
patience, the opportunity to review all of these questions, and
we thank the witnesses for their participation.
The Chairman. Mr. Sturgell, you should get overtime pay for
this performance. You have heard the frustrations of the
Committee on delays and such, but we all recognize that you are
not Superman. Your control over weather is limited. Your
control over the budget of the U.S. Government is very limited.
And you have very little control over illness in the cockpit.
And so, though we may be requiring you to do the impossible, we
just hope you can do the best.
And at this point, I think we should be thanking you and
the agency for making the air transportation in the United
States the safest in the world. People may not realize that.
And in on-time landing and discharge of passengers, we lead the
world. And so, there are good things that we could be speaking
on.
I will be submitting a few questions, technical ones that I
wanted just for clarification. Mr. Gros, you may have felt you
were left out and ignored, but be happy.
Mr. Gros. I am fine. Thank you, Senator.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I will be submitting questions to you on
something that began, I believe, in May of 2001, a process to
improve maritime safety, port facilities, et cetera, SEA-21. I
am certain you know of that. I just wanted to know when can we
expect the package to be delivered to us?
Mr. Gros. Senator, thanks. I don't know off the top of my
head, but I will be sure to get back to you.
The Chairman. And I have two questions. One on the Mexican
border crossing, on trucking. We have had some disagreements. I
would like to know why. And the other one has to do with
Amtrak. We seem to be disagreeing there also. And if you can
give us a reason why the administration is not too keen about
our legislative policy, let me know.
And with that, I would like to thank both of you for this
excruciating morning. But please keep in mind that we are most
grateful to you for your service to our Nation. And on that
point, thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
U.S. Senator from West Virginia
I would like to welcome both of our nominees and their families to
the Committee. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief so we can hear from
our nominees.
The U.S. aviation system, despite its age and the current strains
being placed upon it, remains the safest system in the world. That is
something that everyone involved in aviation can be deeply proud. But,
maintaining this safest system in the world is only getting more
challenging.
Mr. Sturgell, you have been nominated to one of the hardest jobs in
government. I do not need to tell you that fact. Unfortunately, you are
not going to get a lot of support from this White House to do your job,
especially this year. I think you know that too. But, the FAA
Administrator's job is one of the most critical, especially right now,
and I know you understand the challenge that this job represents.
I think we all recognize the U.S. must significantly expand the
capacity of our Nation's air transportation system to make sure that we
continue to have the most effective, safe and secure aviation system in
the world.
During next week's Aviation Subcommittee hearing on the FAA's
budget, I will press you specifically on how the FAA is going to meet
this goal.
Although many are unaware of the issue, the FAA faces an immediate
crisis regarding its ability to pay 4,000 employees after this month.
In addition, the FAA has not been able to make airport infrastructure
grants this year.
Mr. Sturgell, I want to commend you for the way you are working
with the Committee on the current funding crisis facing the FAA. You
have acted in a professional, non-partisan manner, and in the best
interest of the employees of the agency. I know the Chairman shares my
commitment to getting this issue resolved.
By most accounts, you have served ably as the Deputy Administrator
for 5 years and as Acting Administrator for the last 6 months. But, I
will be honest with you. As part of your confirmation process, you will
have to answer for the Administration's policies, actions, and budgets
over the last several years.
It may not fair to have to account for decisions that were not
entirely yours, but as part of the FAA's leadership for the last 5
years and potentially for five more, the Committee needs to know how
you are going to improve employee morale, secure adequate resources in
the tight budgetary times, keep communication open between the FAA and
Congress, and make sure that the modernization of our aging air traffic
control system is kept on schedule and on-budget.
I do not mean to neglect our other nominee. Mr. Gros, this
Administration is not known for its free flow of information to
Congress. I know that the White House and OMB impose limits on your
ability to communicate with us, but I would urge you to keep the lines
of communication open.
I look forward to your testimony.
______
Air Transport Association of America, Inc.
Washington, DC, February 6, 2008
Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
Chairman,
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Vice Chairman,
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Stevens:
On behalf of the Air Transport Association and its member airlines,
I am writing to affirm our unqualified support for the appointment of
Acting Administrator Robert Sturgell as the next Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration. As the Committee considers this
matter, I urge you to confirm his appointment at the hearing tomorrow.
Acting Administrator Sturgell is in the unique position to provide
the strong leadership, vision and critical continuity that will enable
the Federal Aviation Administration to meet the many challenges that it
is facing, particularly the urgent need to modernize our Nation's air
traffic control system. Significant, strategic decisions on system
redesign and implementation priorities must be made now, not in 2
years. We cannot afford to delay this process.
As in the past, I appreciate the commitment of the Committee to
ensure the safety and integrity of the national aviation infrastructure
and community.
Sincerely,
James C. May,
President and CEO.
______
National Business Travel Association
Alexandria, VA, February 5, 2008
Hon. Daniel Inouye,
Chairman,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Inouye:
On behalf of the National Business Travel Association, I urge you
to support the nomination of Robert Sturgell as Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration. His extensive experience in various
sectors of the aviation community has earned him respect and confidence
throughout the industry. Based on his experience and leadership at the
FAA during his tenure as Acting Administrator, NBTA believes he is well
qualified to advance the FAA's key policy and modernization initiatives
which would improve the travel experience for the business travel
community.
Sturgell has proven himself as a capable leader as Deputy
Administrator from 2003-2007 and as Acting Administrator since
September of 2007. With substantial challenges facing the aviation
industry, it is of critical importance that the Congress provides the
aviation community with long-term stability with a confirmed FAA
Administrator for a full 5 year term. We believe Mr. Sturgell is able
to confront those challenges and lead the FAA into the future. We look
forward to further developing a strong relationship between NBTA and
the FAA under Administrator Sturgell's leadership to strengthen and
improve America's aviation system.
NBTA is actively involved with the U.S. Department of
Transportation and the FAA as it seeks to improve the travel
experience. We recently submitted comments to DOT regarding three
proposed regulations aimed at alleviating air traffic congestion and
improving airline customer service. While we do believe regulatory
solutions are important, we also urge Congress to move quickly to enact
legislation to provide the FAA with new funding mechanisms that ensure
that all aircraft users of the air traffic system contribute fairly in
building a 21st Century aviation system.
The authoritative voice of the business travel community, NBTA
represents over 3,000 corporate travel managers and travel service
providers who collectively manage and direct more than $170 billion of
expenditures within the business travel industry, primarily for Fortune
500 companies. NBTA is the leading international association to
represent the corporate travel community.
Sincerely,
Bill Connors,
Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer.
cc: Vice-Chairman Ted Stevens
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell
Question 1. In a January 7, 2008, meeting at Kona Airport in Kona,
Hawaii, I was assured, in person, by representatives of Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Headquarters that funding for the Kona
air traffic control (ATC) tower would be included in the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2009 budget. Can you tell me where the funding for the Kona tower
project is located in President Bush's FY 2009 budget request and how
you plan to provide such funding? Does the FAA still anticipate
completing the Kona ATC tower by 2011 as I was promised last month?
Answer. The Kona tower is expected to be completed in 2011 and
commissioned in 2012 when training and other preparation for the
facility are concluded. Although funding for the new Kona air traffic
control tower is not in the FY 2009 budget proposal, the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) is in the process of requesting authority
to reprogram funds that would otherwise expire at the end of this
fiscal year to fund the Kona tower.
This approach is consistent with the spirit of the commitment made
by FAA officials to provide the resources needed to move forward on the
design and build of this tower. Additionally, making use of funds that
would otherwise expire makes good business sense and demonstrates FAA's
desire to make the most efficient use of its resources.
In future budget submissions, we will request additional funding as
necessary to complete the project on schedule.
Question 2. Why has the ASDE-X system, an air traffic control
system which helps track planes on the ground at airports, not been
installed at some of the largest airports in the system, such as New
York's Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark? What is the status of the
implementation of such systems at Hawaii's Honolulu International
Airport?
Answer. The Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model X (ASDE-X)
is a surface surveillance system that aids air traffic controllers in
tracking the surface movement of aircraft and vehicles. The FAA plans
to deploy ASDE-X systems to 35 airports. Eleven systems have already
been commissioned. The remaining 24 systems are in various stages of
the ASDE-X implementation process. Because of my commitment to
improving runway safety, I asked my team to accelerate the deployment
of the remaining ASDE-X systems. This may increase the baseline cost of
the system, but I believe it is a good use of taxpayers' dollars to do
so.
ASDE-X was originally a less expensive surveillance system designed
for second tier airports. Nevertheless, the design was so successful
that in 2005, FAA decided to bring it to the busiest airports in the
country. Some of the largest airports in the system, including New
York's Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark, were not among the first sites
to receive ASDE-X systems because they already had surface surveillance
systems, such as Airport Surface Detection Equipment, Model 3 or the
Airport Movement Area Safety System. However, I have directed my team
to expedite the implementation schedule at JFK. We expect to begin
initial operations of ASDE-X at JFK this summer, nearly 1 year ahead of
schedule. We are working with the Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey and airlines at JFK to provide additional ASDE-X ramp and gate
coverage data. We plan to have preliminary ASDE-X data available by
June 30, 2008.
At Newark, we are completing site preparation/construction and
equipment installation. We expect ASDE-X initial operations at Newark
to begin in July of 2009.
Because we are building a new airport traffic control tower at
LaGuardia, we are timing the installation of the LaGuardia ASDE-X to
coincide with the new tower. We expect initial ASDE-X operations to
begin in December 2010.
Honolulu is scheduled to be operational in May 2010. We are
currently in the engineering design phase at Honolulu. The FAA is
working on obtaining leases, completing environmental requirements,
ordering telecommunications, etc.
Question 3. To what extent does air traffic controller fatigue
contribute to the safety incidents you have seen over the past few
years, and what is the FAA doing to address the issue?
Answer. We have convened a working group on controller shift
scheduling addressing potential fatigue affects on all safety-critical
personnel across our entire controller and technician workforces, as
well as the supervisors and managers assigned to oversee these
positions.
Representatives from all FAA operational service units and
technical representatives from the FAA Civil Aerospace Medical
Institute (CAMI) have been invited to participate. The working group
also depends on labor unions such as the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association (NATCA) and the Professional Airways Systems
Specialists (PASS) to provide critical subject matter expertise. These
unions have had the opportunity to review relevant fatigue research,
which has initiated discussions regarding possible approaches to
minimize the effects of schedule-related fatigue.
In early January, I sent a letter to NATCA, asking for their views
on the two specific issues raised by the NTSB: the ``2-2-1'' schedule,
and personal fatigue management strategies. To date, there has been no
response.
Additionally, fatigue awareness and countermeasures training
materials are currently under development for the basic air traffic
control course offered by the Air Traffic Controller Training and
Development Group in Oklahoma City in coordination with CAMI.
We are also close to signing an agreement with NATCA to establish
the Air Traffic Safety Action Program (ATSAP), which will provide us
with information previously unavailable to us regarding the human
factor issues associated with incidents and accidents. Our ATSAP
initiative with NATCA will specifically give us access to fatigue
information, as it will be a part of every report. I signed the
agreement on February 14, and we are waiting for NATCA's signature.
Finally, we will host a fatigue risk symposium. The purpose of this
meeting is to: (1) provide senior aviation decisionmakers and managers
a current understanding of fatigue physiology risk assessment and
mitigation alternatives, and (2) develop proposals for near and long-
term initiatives and awareness of best practices that can be embraced
by the aviation community to mitigate fatigue risk.
Question 4. What are the top three things you believe the FAA needs
to continue to improving safety?
Answer. I have seen the system from all angles: at Top Gun, as a
commercial airline pilot, as an accident investigator and now as a
regulator. Even with all of this experience, the perspective that still
matters the most is that of the passenger.
The FAA must improve its ability to deliver a safe, efficient and
consistent experience to the passenger. Our ability to make that happen
hinges on the launch of new technology and procedures, specifically in
the form of the Next General Air Transportation System (NextGen).
NextGen eliminates the ground-based technology of last century and
instead relies on satellites and increased automation for safety and
efficiency. Implementing and operating NextGen will require effective
labor-management relations and a highly trained, professional
workforce.
With a billion passengers and double traffic loads headed our way,
NextGen is not the luxury system of the future. Rather, it's a
foundation that we must begin putting in place now to safely and
efficiently accommodate the unparalleled growth that has been forecast.
Secondly, at the very core of increased safety is the transition
from forensics-based analysis to a predictive approach. As the system
becomes more and more safe, the causes of accidents diminish. By
sharing safety information between and among airlines, pilots,
engineers, technicians and inspectors, we are able to look at trends
that point to what could become an accident. They are eliminated before
they manifest themselves in tragedy.
Waiting for the accident to occur is no longer acceptable. We are
integrating various databases through the Aviation Safety Information
and Sharing system. This system identifies trends and risks before they
manifest themselves in accidents. We are also close to signing an
agreement with NATCA to establish the Air Traffic Safety Action Program
(ATSAP), which isolates human factor issues associated with incidents
and accidents.
Lastly, we must continue with our collaborative approach to
operating the system. We now design daily airplane flow strategies with
the airlines at our command center. We are also working with industry
to implement an entirely new approach to improving safety, called the
Safety Management Systems. This approach to safety management calls for
industry to identify hazards and put risk mitigation strategies in
place. Again, it is all about developing processes, procedures, and
strategies to minimize risks and identify a problem before it leads to
an accident.
Question 5. Congress has made funding for the inspector workforce a
priority. What is the FAA doing to ensure adequate inspector staffing?
How are you dealing with the staffing shortages?
Answer. I appreciate the support Congress has provided to the FAA
through increased funding to hire additional safety employees.
Historically, we have linked inspector staffing levels to growth in the
industry--when industry was projected to grow 5 percent, we would
estimate an increase in staffing of 1.5 percent to 2 percent. While
this link has worked relatively well, we are aggressively working on an
inspector staffing model that will help us forecast future needs. This
model will be completed in October 2009.
In FY 2007, the FAA hired over 400 aviation safety inspectors
through positions that became vacant during the year and new hires.
Given attrition rates of the last 2 years of about 8 percent, I will
continue to support the hiring of over 517 aviation safety inspectors
in FY 2008 while leveraging the Designee Program and Safety Management
Systems in order to meet industry demands and provide the necessary
oversight of the expanding air transportation system.
Question 6. What is the agency's strategic plan for ensuring a
fully staffed and productive workforce in light of the number of
inspectors eligible to retire in 2010? I understand that it takes at
least three to 5 years for an inspector to become fully trained and
productive. Has the agency figured this training period into its plan?
Answer. We believe our current attrition rate of approximately 8
percent annually will decrease to 5.5 percent in the future because of
the implementation of our recruitment strategies. Also, we do not have
a mandatory retirement age for our inspector workforce.
Many of our inspectors bring tremendous experience from years in
private industry or the military. This experience, along with formal
training and targeted on-the-job training (OJT), gives managers the
flexibility to immediately use the expertise of the new employee and
chart a path to full proficiency in all tasks within 3 years. The
Flight Standards Service has taken a number of steps to reduce the time
for inspectors to reach that level.
We have implemented a compressed resident training schedule,
which allows us to train more inspectors more quickly. We are
committed to having new inspectors successfully complete their
resident indoctrination training within 6 months of their
entrance on duty.
We also shifted from a classroom-based training program to a
training program that uses a blend of distance delivered
training and classroom delivered training. This allows our
inspectors to start their formal training program after
reporting to their office and provides the critical foundation
for their resident training.
Our structured OJT program helps them effectively integrate
their formal training with the work they are assigned in their
office.
Question 7. The National Transportation Safety Board continues to
highlight the need for improved runway safety, specifically
recommending that incursion alerts be provided directly to the pilots
in the cockpit. What is the FAA doing to respond to this recommendation
and how long will it take to make it happen?
Answer. We are developing strategies to provide alerts directly to
the pilots. The development and testing of Runway Status Lights (RWSL)
is one such initiative. Albeit not in the cockpit, RWSLs provide
``direct pilot'' alerting (described below) and are used in conjunction
with the ASDE-X system scheduled for deployment at our busiest 35
airports--11 ASDE-X systems are fully deployed and the majority of the
remainder will be deployed by 2010 with a few final implementations
scheduled for 2011.
When the ASDE-X system detects traffic creating a potential
problem, the RWSLs will illuminate, giving the pilots direct warning of
the situation. RWSL deployment is on schedule with a prime contract to
be awarded in the summer of 2008 and deployment to 21 sites to be
completed FY 2011.
We are also testing a system to alert pilots when a runway they are
about to land on is occupied. This direct pilot alert lighting system
is called the Final Approach Runway Occupancy Signal or FAROS. The test
has been successful at Long Beach Airport and I am expanding the test
to Dallas-Fort Worth to include some new system capabilities, such as
an interface with the RWSL safety logic. If the tests are successful,
this system could be deployed as early as 2012.
We recognize that ground surveillance technology is foundational to
any ground movement safety system that provides direct pilot alerting
capability and we are pursuing cost-effective ways to make this
technology more widely available throughout our system. To that end, I
have directed the establishment of a pilot program to evaluate Low Cost
Ground Surveillance (LCGS) systems that can be installed at small- and
medium-sized airports where ASDE-X technology may not be a cost-
effective solution. Under this pilot program, we will install and
evaluate commercially available LCGS products at six airports during
2009. We expect that this pilot will lead to technology solutions that
we can deploy more broadly to enable pilot alerting tools like RWSL and
FAROS at airports where these capabilities are needed. Earlier this
month, we began this process by releasing a market survey to identify
potential industry participants and we expect to award contracts to
acquire and install selected LCGS systems during the summer.
In the long term, the FAA has issued a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) that would make Automated Dependent Surveillance-
Broadcast (ADS-B) equipage required by 2020 for operations in certain
airspace. This system, when fully developed and deployed, is capable of
directly informing and alerting pilots of aircraft and vehicles
operating on and around an airport. Standards for this direct pilot
alerting capability are under development, with laboratory simulations
scheduled in 2008 and a planned operational evaluation at Philadelphia
International Airport (PHL) in 2010.
I have also taken steps to significantly streamline the
certification of Global Positioning System (GPS) moving map technology
to improve a pilot's situational awareness while operating on an
airport. The standards for such a system are approved for use in a
pilot's electronic flight bag, and it is anticipated that several
manufacturers will achieve fully certified capabilities this year.
Question 8. What specific steps is the FAA taking to address
congestion and delay in the New York region? How much progress has the
FAA made in achieving these measures?
Answer. The FAA's preferred approach to addressing congestion and
delay is to increase capacity to meet demand. Long-term, the capacity
improvements that the NextGen system makes possible will combat
congestion in New York and around the country. However, the New York
metro airports are near saturation and will not be able to increase
physical capacity at a sufficient level to keep pace with current and
future demand.
On December 19, Secretary Peters announced new actions designed to
reduce congestion in the New York area starting next summer. The new
measures developed at the direction of President Bush last Fall
included:
The New York Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) was
developed in late September and concluded on December 10. This
Committee had representatives from airlines, interest groups,
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the State of
New York. The ARC held weekly meetings from September to
December and discussed a wide-range of options for reducing
delays and managing congestion in the New York region.
Among other things, the New York ARC identified 77
initiatives to improve the operational efficiency of one or
more New York airports. Many of these initiatives were
identified in collaboration with the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey.
A voluntary order was issued on January 16, 2008, to cap
hourly operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport
(JFK). Flights are capped at an average of 82 to 83 per hour
during the peak period. At the same time, about 50 additional
flights will be accommodated by moving flights from peak times
to other times during the day. The hourly caps will take effect
March 30, 2008, and will be in place for 2008 and 2009.
Negotiations on a voluntary cap for summer 2008 and 2009 at
Newark Liberty International Airport (Newark) are ongoing.
Other ongoing actions include:
Further implementation of airspace redesign to have more
efficient approach and departure paths for JFK, Newark, and
LaGuardia airports;
Development of a New York Area Program Integration Office.
An aviation ``czar'' was recently appointed to serve as
director of the newly-created office; and
A new Federal advisory task force that will help airlines
and airports better coordinate when unexpected weather strands
passengers on tarmacs and in airports.
In addition to the actions announced by the Secretary on December
19, the Department of Transportation issued a proposal on January 11
that would amend the FAA's ``Policy Regarding the Establishment of
Airport Rates and Charges.'' These proposed amendments are intended to
provide greater flexibility to operators of congested airports. The
public comment period on these proposed changes closes April 3, 2008.
The FAA also intends to propose regulations to limit the number of
unscheduled flights and to require a reservation to operate during
controlled hours for JFK, LaGuardia and Newark airports to further aid
in dealing with delays.
Finally, the Department of Transportation is pursuing a rulemaking
for longer-term congestion mitigation in New York. The Administration
is interested in the possibilities of market-based measures and will
proceed with notice and comment to all the stakeholders as we move
forward.
Question 9. What are your views on congestion pricing and slot
auctions? Can you point to any specific examples where the benefits
have been proven in prior initiatives that have incorporated either of
these concepts?
Answer. The need to address airport congestion and delay remains an
important policy focus of the Administration. I believe increasing
capacity is the most appropriate response to the public's needs in the
long run. While congestion pricing and slot auctions could serve to
reduce delays where capacity is constrained, they would not serve to
accommodate growth. This is why NextGen is so important.
Even though FAA is taking steps to address congestion, forecasts
indicate that some areas of the nation, in particular New York, will
have difficulty in meeting air-traffic demand in the coming years. Over
the past several years, FAA has undertaken extensive research efforts
to explore the feasibility of various market-based mechanisms (such as
auctions and congestion pricing) to manage congestion at capacity
constrained airports where expansion is not feasible.
We believe that pricing mechanisms, like congestion pricing and
slot auctions, may be the most efficient way to allocate a scarce
resource, because they make the resource available to those who value
it the most. Pricing can balance demand with available capacity,
resulting in more reliable schedules. Also, pricing sends better
signals as to where the system needs extra capacity, and it can supply
the revenues to add such needed capacity. That is why we are looking at
market-based measures for longer-term solutions to congestion,
particularly in New York. Although the airline industry is complex, we
believe it is worthwhile to examine the benefits of applying these
models to aviation.
Every private industry uses pricing as a means to address demand.
There are two examples of the use of pricing in the U.S. for aviation.
First, Boston's Logan International Airport has a peak pricing plan
that will give airlines the option to reschedule flights to less
congested times or pay a fee for flying during peak periods. This plan
will be implemented when the airport reaches a certain level of
congestion. Second, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
currently charges a nominal congestion fee. These fees were initially
effective in changing behavior. Additionally, airlines use a pricing
model in the sale of plane tickets. Flights at less attractive times
are priced lower than flights at popular times.
Question 10. The Department of Transportation recently proposed
changes to the regulations governing the airport rates and charges to
permit them to impose congestion charges. Are there examples where
congestion charges have been used successfully at airports to manage
congestion?
Answer. On January 14, the Department published a Federal Register
Notice of Proposed Amendments to the Airport Rates and Charges Policy.
The notice proposes two changes and one clarification to the Rates and
Charges Policy, and to add a definition of ``congested airport.''
The first change would clarify that airports may use a ``two-part''
fee structure with an operation-based and weight-based element. The
second change would permit an operator of a congested airport to charge
for work under construction. Finally, the third change would expand the
authority of an operator of an airport system to charge users of the
congested airport in the system for the airfield costs of other
airports in its system.
If adopted, the amendments will allow a congested airport to raise
the price of using its runways. This, in turn, could provide a
financial incentive to aircraft operators to consider alternatives,
such as scheduling flights outside of peak demand times, increasing
aircraft size to use the congested runways more efficiently or meeting
regional air service needs through alternative, less congested
facilities.
We are only aware of two prior examples of congestion charges, both
of which are noted in the preamble to the amendments. The peak period
pricing program established for Boston Logan Airport has not yet been
triggered. I believe this is the first time the second and third
changes have been considered to help airports relieve congestion. I
believe these policies can effect a change to move at least a small
number of aircraft operations out of peak periods at the most congested
airports. The rescheduling of just a few flights to non-congested
periods could have a significant impact on delay reduction.
Question 11. To what extent would the FAA's proposed New York and
New Jersey airspace redesign address congestion and delays in the area
and across the nation?
Answer. The 20 percent delay reduction described in the Record of
Decision (ROD) is the extent to which congestion and delay will be
addressed when Airspace Redesign is fully implemented. The analyses
that supported the ROD did not cover the entire nation. However, more
than 20 percent of the delays in the United States in 2007 occurred in
the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia area. Approximately one-third of
the Nation's flights and one-sixth of the world's flights either start
or traverse the airspace that supports the New York and New Jersey
regions. As a result, any reduction in the delays for flights in the
New York/New Jersey region will have a significant, positive impact on
local, national, and global air traffic efficiency.
Question 12. What assumptions are being made regarding aircraft
equipage, pilot training, and air traffic controller training for each
phase of this plan if there is to be absolutely no degradation in
safety?
Answer. We are not assuming any mandated aircraft equipage or
equipment, but we do see some of the highest advanced navigation
equipage levels in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia areas. As we do
with all new procedures and airspace designs, training is provided to
our workforce. We will continue to work with the aviation community to
educate our customers on these changes and to ensure pilot training
meets expected levels. We anticipate that each stage of implementation
of the selected project will take approximately 12-18 months. Education
and training are two crucial steps in our implementation planning
processes.
Question 13. Could you describe the methodology the FAA used to
reach that conclusion, the estimated amount of time saved per flight if
the redesign is implemented, and what alternative methods for
addressing airline delays FAA considered and rejected?
Answer. We did not estimate the delay reduction per flight since
delay is not a linear concept. Instead, we looked at delay as a whole
across the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan area. The time
saved under redesigned operations, compared to a future in which no
action is taken, was estimated from the output of simulations of the
various possible alternative airspace designs, using state-of-the-art
modeling techniques. Appendix C of the Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) provides the details. This document can be found at: http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/nas_redesign/
regional_guidance/eastern_reg/nynjp
hl_redesign/feis/appendix. As described in chapter 2, section 2.3, of
the EIS, the FAA considered alternatives to airspace redesign including
increased use of alternative modes of transportation and communication;
increased use of satellite airports; improvements to airport
infrastructure; congestion management programs; and improved air
traffic control technology. All alternatives but airspace redesign were
rejected because they did not meet the purpose and need for the
project.
Question 14. What methodology did the FAA use to evaluate these
environmental impacts? Could you describe the noise mitigation
strategies the FAA intends to employ in affected communities? Did the
FAA's analysis take into account the increase in noise likely to result
from dramatically increased air traffic over the next 10 years?
Answer. The analysis of environmental impacts used in the EIS is
based on established methods, techniques, and practices that have been
developed and refined in the industry (by both the government and
private sector) over many decades. For noise analysis, the FAA used the
Noise Integrated Routing System (NIRS) for regional noise analysis,
which has at its core, the Integrated Noise Model (INM). INM is the
primary tool used by the FAA (and about 1,100 users worldwide) to
compute airport community noise exposure.
The FAA took into account the forecast growth in aviation over the
10 years between the project baseline and 2011. The analysis in the EIS
forecast the same level of traffic growth both with and without the
project. Impacts, including noise impacts, were calculated for the No
Action Alternative and appear in chapter 4 of the EIS.
The noise mitigation measures included in the selected project are
described in detail in Appendices O and P of the Final EIS, which can
be found at: http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/
nas_redesign/regional_guidance/eastern_reg/nynjphl_redesign/feis/
appendix. The approach to mitigation was to look for opportunities to
refine the Integrated Airspace Alternative with Integrated Control
Facility to mitigate noise impacts without sacrificing safety or the
efficiency gains of the alternative. FAA refined headings to lessen the
noise impact while maintaining the efficiency gains. Additionally, use
of the headings was limited to those times when they were essential to
maintain efficiency. For example, at PHL, we reduced the number of
departure headings for east and west flow traffic. The headings chosen
for noise mitigation tend to be grouped closer to the river corridors
and thus minimize the number of people exposed to potential noise
impacts caused by the selected project.
Question 15. How do you rate the progress of NextGen to date? What
are the primary obstacles FAA is encountering in the implementation of
NextGen?
Answer. The FAA has made good progress on NextGen to date. We have
begun building the NextGen system with five ``foundational'' NextGen
programs: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B), Data
Communications, System Wide Information Management (SWIM), NextGen
Network Enabled Weather (NNEW) and the National Airspace System (NAS)
Voice Switch.
ADS-B and SWIM were the first NextGen projects and were introduced
with the FY 2006 budget. A contract for the ADS-B ground infrastructure
was awarded in August 2007. By December 2009, the agency expects to
make the ``in-service decision'' that essentially commissions ADS-B for
the NAS and certifies its use for air traffic control separation
services. ADS-B is on track to be deployed nationwide by 2013.
Significant progress has also been made with the SWIM program. The
first segment of the SWIM program allows various FAA automation systems
to exchange weather and flight data management information. A contract
for a new Terminal Data Distribution System is expected to be awarded
later this year. Initial capabilities will be available beginning in
2010.
Data Communications funding began in FY 2007. The FAA has been
working directly with the airspace users to vet the proposed program in
anticipation of an Initial Investment Decision this summer. The FAA
will begin integrating Data Communications into our high-altitude air
traffic automation systems in 2010 and offer air-to-ground data
services in 2014.
The FAA began funding NNEW and the NAS Voice Switch in FY 2008.
These projects begin by translating operational needs into requirements
and a concept of use that supports the NextGen vision. During this
phase, the FAA works with stakeholders, including air traffic
controllers, to develop requirements and assess alternative solutions
that may satisfy our needs. Acquisition does not begin until these
important steps have been completed.
It is critically important that the work on all five NextGen
foundational programs is underway today so that they will be
operational in the NAS in time to meet projected traffic increases in
the 2016 timeframe. However, we are beginning the transition to NextGen
in advance of delivery of these programs. The transition to NextGen is
actually occurring now as the FAA continues to move to space-based
operations. New capabilities are being integrated into many of our
existing systems to improve operations today.
We are also expanding the use of advanced aircraft capabilities to
provide safer and more efficient operations. We've deployed a new
oceanic air traffic control system that uses satellites and electronic
reporting of aircraft positions. We have reduced the separation
requirements in the West Atlantic for aircraft equipped with advanced
avionics. We have also established satellite-based routes on the West
Coast.
We have already completed a number of airspace projects that take
advantage of advanced avionics and satellite-based technologies today.
The Dynamic Airborne Reroute Procedures (DARP) allows aircraft to take
advantage of updated flight information to re-route to a more
advantageous flight plan while airborne. Satellite-based ADS-B is being
used to separate aircraft in Alaska. The introduction of satellite-
based required navigation performance (RNP) approaches with lower
minima in Alaska allows Alaska Airlines to access Juneau with far
greater frequency than they have realized in the past. In Houston, the
new Houston Area Air Traffic System (HAATS) and airspace redesign
proposes to revamp Houston terminal and surrounding en route airspace.
It includes new dual arrival routes and three new departure routes. The
O'Hare Modernization Project includes new departure routes, new en
route sectors and new arrival procedures to support triple arrivals in
addition to new runways.
This evolutionary approach provides for a smooth transition for
pilots and controllers from operations of today to the changes required
to fully achieve NextGen capabilities. This approach also allows for
improvements throughout the NextGen investment period rather than
waiting until 2025 to see benefits.
The FY 2009 budget request includes funding that will be dedicated
to refining operational concepts of use and performing other pre-
implementation analyses. This work will determine how the foundational
NextGen programs will combine with new procedures, airspace and
facility design, standards development and certification to change the
performance of the air transportation system.
NextGen Challenges
We must maintain the safety of today's air traffic control system
while still developing new NextGen capabilities. This is a challenge.
We have to use our resources to keep the NAS running while soliciting
expertise from those same resources to support NextGen development.
The complex NextGen enterprise and the difficulties posed by the
required integration of the diverse elements of the system pose a
significant challenge. We also face the challenge of merging today's
facilities into NextGen facilities. Moreover, we have to obtain the
human resources with the right skills sets needed to implement NextGen
operational improvements.
Question 16. The FAA has a history of mismanagement, cost overruns,
and delays, in handling modernization programs. Is the agency
experiencing problems with managing any of the current modernization
projects?
Answer. Since implementing new acquisition management policies over
the past 5 years, we have taken significant steps to address key
factors contributing to legacy cost, schedule and performance
shortfalls. These steps include:
Implementing the Integrated Acquisition Management System
(AMS) and OMB's Capital Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition
control process to track, analyze, and assess the risks
associated with FAA major capital investments;
Segmenting large or complex capital programs into manageable
phases to improve executive oversight and control. By
segmenting programs into phases such as development,
demonstration, and production, the Joint Resources Council
(JRC) is able to review incremental progress against cost and
schedule baselines and approve subsequent program phases based
upon program performance achieved to date;
Revising AMS to ensure that funding for contract audits
throughout a project's lifecycle are included in the
acquisition program baseline;
Requiring the use of Earned Value Management (EVM)
techniques for contracts where there are significant risks to
the government. EVM provides a consistent methodology for
measuring program progress and detection of underlying problem
areas. Major programs were assessed against the industry
standards for EVM compliance;
Requiring major acquisition program managers to be certified
by the Project Management Institute based on the industry
standard of the Program Manager's Body of Knowledge. Currently
all major capital acquisitions are managed by qualified,
certified program managers;
Launching a new graduate certification program in system
engineering to prepare engineers for NextGen;
Establishing a Capital Investment Team (CIT) within ATO to
review and evaluate the costs and benefits of existing and
proposed capital investments. The CIT also provides guidance
and recommendations for those investments seeking approval from
the JRC;
Implementing quarterly reviews within ATO with the Senior
Vice President for Finance and the ATO Service Unit Vice
Presidents responsible for management of the capital programs
within their domains. Financial status, acquisition baseline
milestones, annual milestones, earned value management
performance data and technical requirements stability are
covered in the reviews; and
Reviewing contract awards, including contract modifications
to existing contracts greater than $10 million, within ATO
Finance and by the FAA Chief Financial Officer prior to
approval.
Although we acknowledge problems with some of the major
acquisitions in the past, many steps have been taken in recent years to
ensure all of our programs are managed well and meeting performance
metrics and goals, and additional oversight is maintained through the
life of the program until completion.
Question 17. What primary steps would you take to ensure the air
transportation system is modernized in an efficient and effective
manner?
Answer. The FAA has put into place a management and governance
structure that will support efficient and effective integration and
implementation of NextGen operational improvements. Under my guidance
and direction, the ATO Vice President for Operations Planning is
responsible for the integration and implementation of NextGen projects
and capabilities.
The Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP) Integration and
Implementation Office is responsible for NextGen portfolio development
and management, schedule and milestone tracking, and commitment
monitoring. The office also ensures appropriate alignment and
integration of diverse activities agency-wide.
Additionally, we expanded the scope of the previous Operational
Evolution Plan to encompass NextGen domains and solution sets. The OEP
has an excellent track record of meeting commitments--due in part to
the cross-agency support and regular attention of the OEP Associates
Team. The new OEP Associates Team is chaired by the Deputy
Administrator and comprised of all of the FAA Associate Administrators,
ATO Vice Presidents, the Director of the Joint Planning and Development
Office, and representatives from MITRE, PASS and NATCA.
Question 18. To what extent have air traffic controllers been
involved in modernization efforts?
Answer. Our air traffic controllers are highly skilled, dedicated,
and passionate about what they do, and we are taking advantage of this
fact as we undertake the research and technology development leading us
to NextGen. Through ongoing formal channels, the FAA involves
controllers, technicians and the aviation community, so that their
input is heard as the FAA develops the NextGen.
NATCA participates in four committees shaping NextGen. The groups
range from serving as one of 16 members on the Institute Management
Council, established by Congress to ensure key aviation stakeholders
have input into the NextGen system, to the Air Traffic Management
Advisory Committee, which advises the FAA on all NextGen investments
through the auspices of the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics
(RTCA).
NATCA also participates in the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee--advising the FAA on air traffic procedures; as well as the
Operational Evolution Partnership (OEP)--the group that validates
NextGen technologies and oversees their transition into the NAS.
Controller Subject Matter Experts
Since 2005, thousands of air traffic controllers and academy
students have participated in the testing of NextGen technologies. In
addition to tests done at local facilities and the FAA Academy in
Oklahoma City, the FAA brings controllers to the research and
development facility at the William J. Hughes Tech Center to test new
equipment and procedures.
Air traffic controllers provide technical expertise on new FAA
programs that form the foundation for NextGen, from computing to
surveillance. Some specific projects include:
Performance-Based Air Traffic Management;
High Altitude Trajectory-Based Operations;
Airspace redesign projects--New York and Chicago;
En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM);
Runway Status Lights (RWSL);
Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP);
User Request Evaluation Tool (URET);
Low Cost Surface Surveillance (LCSS); and
Performance standards for training developmental
controllers.
NextGen research and development takes advantage of the unique
skill sets of controllers without introducing present day biases. By
introducing potential NextGen concepts and assessing how today's
controllers perform under simulated NextGen conditions, we learn a lot
about human reactions and interactions and apply that to the design of
new systems. Controllers will also be used in our evaluation of future
designs and redesigns.
NextGen requires a far more transformational view than those
exhibited in the past and our workforce is capable of this
transformation. Their participation in our analysis and testing is
proving that.
Question 19. What are your plans for ensuring that FAA unions are
not omitted from participation in the future during the NextGen
initiative? Have you made any plans to approach unions to participate
on current projects from which they were excluded?
Answer. I intend to ensure our employee unions are involved in the
development of NextGen, through ongoing formal channels.
NATCA currently participates in four committees shaping NextGen.
The groups range from serving as one of 16 members on the Institute
Management Council established by Congress to ensure key aviation
stakeholders have input to the NextGen system, to the Air Traffic
Management Advisory Committee--advising the FAA on all NextGen
investments through the auspices of the Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics (RTCA).
NATCA also participates in the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee--advising the FAA on air traffic procedures; as well as the
Operational Evolution Partnership--the group that validates NextGen
technologies and oversees their transition into the NAS.
PASS also has a seat on the OEP Associates Team, the primary
governance body for NextGen in the FAA. From this vantage point they
participate in developing NextGen strategic plans and monitoring
progress. The OEP is the foundation document for developing and
implementing NextGen programs, and thus a seat at the table can
significantly influence the shape of the future NAS.
Additionally, FAA has traditionally recruited subject matter
experts from the technician workforce to help design new equipment,
including those comprising NextGen Systems. Examples of current and
past projects involving technician subject matter experts include
runway surface surveillance systems (ASDE/AMASS), Advanced Technologies
and Automated Procedures for Oceanic Airspace (ATOP), and most
recently, the En Route Automation Modernization Program (ERAM) under
NextGen.
Question 20. What changes do you believe should be made to improve
the relationship between FAA and its employees/unions? Are there any
efforts currently underway to improve these relationships?
Answer. Good labor-management relations at the FAA have resulted in
several voluntary agreements just in the past year. Although we were
unable to reach an agreement with NATCA on the air traffic controllers
contract in 2006, we were able to reach a voluntary agreement with
NATCA on the Engineers and Architects contract last year. We also
reached a voluntary agreement last year with the National Association
of Government Employees (NAGE) and are optimistic that the current
negotiations with the American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME) will result in a voluntary agreement.
However, we are always looking for ways to improve our labor-management
relations.
I am also continuing to work with the unions to improve our
communications on issues of concern to the FAA, the employees, the
unions, and the flying public. I am endeavoring to foster a feeling of
inclusiveness by acknowledging the unions' contributions, while
emphasizing our common goals. The introduction of NextGen will usher in
a new era at the FAA. It will be a period of change and challenge. I do
not condone simply telling our employees and their labor organizations
about changes, but engage them in dialogue and address their concerns
as we move forward. To this end, I plan to visit facilities in the
coming year not only to speak to our employees and their
representatives but also to listen to them and take key issues back for
consideration. It is only when we work in a spirit of cooperation and
understanding of each party's positions will we develop a relationship
of trust and mutual respect.
I have initiated a number of efforts to positively affect the
relationship with all of our unions. In December 2007, the FAA
submitted a substantial settlement offer to NATCA in an effort to
resolve lingering issues associated with the 2006 contract. As of this
date, there has been no response by the union. This is the second offer
of settlement that I have proposed to the union. Additionally, NATCA
submitted two proposals during negotiations dealing with Child Care
Subsidies and a Student Loan Repayment Program. While these proposals
were not adopted during the negotiations process, I am now implementing
programs on Child Care Subsidies and Student Loan Repayment for all
eligible employees of the FAA and not just NATCA-represented air
traffic controllers. We will work with NATCA on implementing the
programs for our controllers.
I have also invited the unions to participate with us in safety
programs. For example, the National Occupational Safety, Health, and
Environmental Compliance Committee (OSHECCOM), of which NATCA President
Patrick Forrey is Vice-Chairman, and in which other unions
participated, recommended--and I concurred--to begin installation of
automated external defibrillators in many of our locations. NATCA and
PASS are also both participating with us on our runway safety
initiatives. I have also asked NATCA, in a letter on January 2, 2008,
for their input on air traffic controller fatigue issues and to sit
down with the FAA to address the National Transportation Safety Board's
(NTSB) fatigue concerns.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John F. Kerry to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell
Question 1. What data and what processes were used by the Agency to
make air traffic controller staffing determinations at each facility?
Answer. The FAA's process for establishing controller ranges by
facility involves the use of several data sources. For example, in
developing these ranges, we considered our industrial engineered
standards, past facility performance, the performance of other similar
facilities, productivity improvements, recommendations from the
National Academy of Science, as well as input from managers in the
field, overtime trends, time-on-position data, traffic forecasts, and
expected retirements.
In the last version of the Controller Workforce Plan, the FAA
published controller staffing ranges for all 314 FAA operated Air
Traffic Controller facilities. Our staffing ranges provide the number
of controllers needed to perform the work and include all position-
qualified controllers. Most facilities will be in a period of
transition over the next few years and will be staffing with a
combination of certified professional controllers (CPCs), CPCs-In
Training, and a large number of developmental controllers who are
proficient, or checked out in specific sectors or positions.
Developmentals have always handled live traffic, and in fact, this is a
requirement to maintain proficiency as they progress toward CPC status.
Each facility is reviewed to evaluate headcount, operational
activity, and productivity trends. Productivity trends are then
compared with appropriate peer facilities. These ``peers'' are
determined by the facility type and level.
Exceptional situations, or outliers, are removed from the averages
(for example, if there has been a change in the type or level of
facility over the period of evaluation). By analyzing the remaining
data points, staffing ranges are generated for each facility.
Question 2. How are you involving employee representatives,
specifically the users of the equipment like air traffic controllers,
in any future plans with regards to technology, procedures and new
staffing levels? This is something that both the GAO and IG have cited
as needed.
Answer. The FAA routinely utilizes bargaining unit employees to
field test new technology, and to provide subject matter expertise on a
wide range of issues such as planning new procedures, airport layouts
and human factors in the design of equipment/technology. The current
contract contains provisions that permit the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association (NATCA) to recommend the bargaining unit
employees to be utilized in these workgroups. A similar process was
contained in the previous contract. However, a labor-management dispute
in July of 2005 led NATCA to refuse to exercise their right to make
those determinations as to which employees would participate in
workgroups, leaving the FAA with having to make those determinations as
assignments of work.
I believe the users of the equipment are the best qualified people
to give us feedback, ideas and recommendations on procedures for
implementing new technology and assessing the performance of that new
technology. Employees will continue to be used to field test new
technology, and as subject matter experts. I hope NATCA will rejoin
this process as allowed by the collective bargaining agreement. More
importantly, I am firmly committed to including our employee unions in
planning the direction the FAA will take with respect to airspace
design and technology necessary to accomplish our mission now and in
the future.
NextGen Development
Through ongoing formal channels, the FAA involves controllers,
technicians and the aviation community so that their input is heard as
the FAA develops the NextGen. Our air traffic controllers are highly
skilled, dedicated, and passionate about what they do, and we are
taking maximum advantage of this fact as we undertake the research and
technology development leading us to NextGen.
NATCA participates in four committees shaping NextGen. The groups
range from serving as one of 16 members on the Institute Management
Council established by Congress to ensure key aviation stakeholders
have input to the NextGen system, to the Air Traffic Management
Advisory Committee--advising the FAA on all NextGen investments through
the auspices of the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA).
NATCA also participates in the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory
Committee--advising the FAA on air traffic procedures; as well as the
Operational Evolution Partnership--the group that validates NextGen
technologies and oversees their transition into the National Airspace
System (NAS).
Controller Subject Matter Experts
Since 2005, thousands of air traffic controllers and academy
students have participated in the testing of NextGen technologies. In
addition to tests done at local facilities and the FAA Academy in
Oklahoma City, the FAA brings controllers to the research and
development facility at the William J. Hughes Tech Center to test new
equipment and procedures.
Air traffic controllers provide technical expertise on new FAA
programs that form the foundation for NextGen, from computing to
surveillance. Some specific projects include:
Performance-Based Air Traffic Management;
High Altitude Trajectory-Based Operations;
Airspace redesign projects--New York and Chicago;
En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM);
Runway Status Lights (RWSL);
Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP);
User Request Evaluation Tool (URET);
Low Cost Surface Surveillance (LCSS); and
Performance standards for training developmental
controllers.
As to the issue of staffing, the determination of the appropriate
level of staffing is a management responsibility for which the FAA
alone is accountable. In setting staffing levels, we consider
industrial engineering standards, past facility performance, the
performance of other facilities, productivity improvements,
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, as well as input
from the facilities themselves.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Byron L. Dorgan to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell
Question 1. Given the heightened importance of unmanned aircraft in
the overall central mission, do you feel that the Unmanned Aircraft
Program Office is in need of additional funding?
Answer. The FAA applies resources first to meet our primary mission
of supporting the continued operational safety of the civilian fleet in
our National Airspace System (NAS). To address the potential that
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) have on the airspace, the Aviation
Safety Organization established the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office in
FY 2006. For the past 2 years, the program office has focused its
resources on meeting the most urgent needs: safely providing military
access, developing standards to integrate UAS into the NAS, granting
civil access and providing international leadership to harmonize UAS
standards and airspace access with the global community.
The advent of UAS has challenged the aviation community. It is
critical that the record-setting safety levels experienced in the U.S.
today continue. UAS need time to mature as any other new technology. I
am committed to working as diligently as possible to allow for the
safe, progressive integration of UAS into the national airspace.
Question 2. What role do you feel that universities play in
contributing toward the advancement of unmanned aircraft in the
National Airspace System?
Answer. The FAA has enjoyed an outstanding relationship with
academic institutions for several years. We envision universities
playing a key role in the development of UAS. In fact, the University
of North Dakota, Rutgers University, and New Mexico State University
are prime examples of the valuable working relationships that I have
been fostering with academia over the past several years through the
Technical Cooperation Research Group (TCRG).
An example of this cooperative effort is the agreement established
by the FAA with the Center of Excellence for General Aviation Research
(CGAR) to organize, conduct research, and report the results and
recommendations for a set of regulatory guidelines to be used with UAS
vehicle design and certification to allow for the safe and efficient
operation of UAS in the NAS.
The CGAR team consisted of representatives from University of
Alaska Anchorage, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University-Prescott, and the University of North Dakota.
The team spent approximately 18 months evaluating the existing
regulation and certification guidelines. The report was a high level
effort that provides the FAA with an initial assessment of Federal
Aviation Regulations, which may need clarifying or modifying to
accommodate UAS.
These outstanding institutions and others will contribute to FAA's
development and issuance of standards and policies to enable the safe
integration of UAS into the NAS.
Question 3. As you know, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are an
increasingly valuable tool in our national security and homeland
defense arsenal, and are potentially useful for civil applications such
as dealing with wildfires. DoD is rapidly expanding their development
and use of UAVs worldwide. We have heard that the FAA is approving
special use of UAVs for some government missions and for some specific
civil applications under very restrictive conditions. What is your plan
to integrate UAVs into the national airspace more quickly and smoothly?
Answer. For UAS to be completely integrated into the NAS, avionics
standards as well as certification standards need to be developed. In
order to expedite the process, we are currently reviewing all existing
regulations to determine if there are existing standards that can be
applied to UAS.
I have directed the program office to focus first on the immediate
need of regulations for small UAS. We are establishing an Aviation
Rulemaking Committee made up of a broad representation of industry,
government, and academia to draft potential regulations for small UAS.
This activity is projected to be completed in approximately 2 years.
These UAS will be operated in daylight hours, visual line of sight from
the pilot, and at a relatively low weight and speed. The program office
will then focus on developing safety and certification standards for
larger, more complex UAS.
Avionics standards are being developed by the Radio Technical
Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), an industry forum recognized as a
Federal Advisory Committee. Minimum aviation system performance
standards necessary for complete airspace access are scheduled for
delivery around 2019.
Question 4. What role do you see Collegiate Training Initiative
(CTI) schools playing in the future of air traffic controller training?
Answer. My vision for the Air Traffic Collegiate Training
Initiative (AT-CTI) program is that it will continue to grow and become
a more significant source for hiring air traffic controllers. The
number of AT-CTI graduates hired into controller positions has rapidly
increased from 195 of 519 new hires in FY 2005; to 1,019 of the 1,815
new hires in FY 2007.
During my tenure at the FAA, the number of approved AT-CTI schools
has also grown. In October 2007, the FAA chose nine new colleges and
universities to be part of the AT-CTI program. It is the first
expansion of the AT-CTI program in more than a decade. We expect this
increase to produce a significant number of prospective air traffic
controllers. Thirty-three institutions, including those already in the
program, submitted applications in May 2007. Currently, there are 23
schools in the program including the nine new schools. This program is
being announced again now--allowing more schools to apply for FY 2008.
My goal is to have 35 AT-CTI schools in the program graduating
between 2,000-2,500 students per year by FY 2010. This is a hiring
source of growing significance, providing controllers with college
degrees, which I believe is important for the long-term health of the
controller workforce.
Question 5. Do you envision the new Air Traffic Controller Optimum
Training Solution (ATCOTS) contract will allow the vendor to operate
some of that training at University of North Dakota?
Answer. My goal for the Air Traffic Controller Optimum Training
Solution (ATCOTS) program is to improve the way FAA meets ATC training
needs by streamlining our current contract structure. I believe that by
better leveraging private-sector resources, we will be able to train
controllers in a cost effective, timely manner. The ATCOTS contract
will provide resources to the FAA Academy and to our air traffic
control facilities to train new controllers.
We expect the ATCOTS vendor to continually incorporate the best
approaches and resources into our overall technical training and
development for controllers. We will continue to use the resources of
the FAA Academy, but that does not preclude us from taking advantage of
other potential outside resources, new technologies, programs, and
expertise. We expect our vendor to make recommendations for continuous
improvement throughout the life of the contract. At this time, however,
we cannot predict what those recommendations or improvements will be or
where they will come from.
I envision that the University of North Dakota, and all of our CTI
schools, will continue to benefit from changes we are making in our
curriculum, such as the Air Traffic Basics course currently being
taught at the FAA Academy. These changes will help the University of
North Dakota in recruiting and training students to be competitive
candidates for the FAA.
Question 6. Do you support a restoration of retirement benefits for
the Flight Service Controllers who lost Federal employment as a result
of the FAA's 2005 reduction in force?
Answer. The FAA aggressively pursued actions authorized under law
to minimize the negative impact on employees that were separated due to
the contracting out of the Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS)
facilities. This included:
Filling internal vacancies. More than 694 announcements were
published for internal vacancies, and AFSS displaced employees
were eligible to apply. The placement programs were effective
in ensuring all internal recruitment activity was extended to
those qualified employee applicants. In total, 456 Flight
Service employees were selected for continuing FAA positions
prior to the conduct of the reduction-in-force on October 3,
2005 and 96 employees were rehired under the FAA's Selection
Priority Program.
Offering Voluntary Early Retirement Authority. The Voluntary
Early Retirement Authority (VERA) program helped minimize the
involuntary separation of employees by allowing them to qualify
for voluntary early retirement. Seventeen employees chose this
option.
Offering separation incentives. Voluntary Separation
Incentive Payments (VSIP) or ``buy-outs'' were authorized to
allow agency management the flexibility to manage its workforce
through change. Buy-outs were made available to AFSS employees
in the Alaska Region from June 6-20, 2005, to create placement
opportunities for affected employees.
Retirement opportunity for employees within 2 years of
reaching retirement eligibility. The FAA implemented Public Law
109-115 Section 179(a.), which is known as the ``Snowe
Amendment.'' This amendment allowed 99 separated AFSS employees
who were within 2 years of retirement to be rehired to meet the
age and service requirements for either an optional or a
discontinued service retirement.
The retirement provisions are administered pursuant to law. FAA
does not have discretionary authority to grant retirement service
credit for those employees, which includes flight service controllers,
who do not meet the age and service requirements under the law.
I would also like to note that this response is in regard to those
Flight Service Station Specialists, as defined in 5 U.S.C.
2109(1)(A)(ii) and are covered under the National Association of Air
Traffic Specialists (NAATS) contract. Flight Service Station
Specialists are not air traffic controllers, as defined in 5 U.S.C.
2109(1)(A)(i), who are covered under the NATCA air traffic controllers
contract.
Question 7. A critical asset of our aviation system is the air
traffic control workforce. Under extraordinary pressure, these workers
are instrumental to the safety and efficiency of our Nation's airways.
I am concerned that while you are in dire need of recruiting new
controllers and should be encouraging the current air traffic
controllers to stay in their jobs, the FAA has imposed a contract and
the controllers are unhappy and retiring. They are tired and aviation
safety is at risk. What could have been done differently with the
contract negotiation? What should be done now?
Answer. Recruitments are up. In fact, we are exceeding our
recruitment goals. Our retirement numbers are attributable primarily to
the increased number of controllers who have reached retirement age as
a result of the mass hiring of controllers in the 1980s; and because of
certain provisions of a very unique and generous retirement plan. In
terms of safety, we are in the safest period of aviation history.
In reality, the amount of overtime has increased very little from
2004 to 2007, and last year, FAA controllers used nearly 95 percent of
all the annual leave they earned. Not a single FAA facility is in a
leave exigency program. In addition, we were staffed sufficiently to
grant 24,590 days of leave without pay, which is the equivalent of 95
full time positions. In 2005, under the previous contract, overtime
usage was 1.6 percent of total work hours. In 2007, overtime was 1.7
percent of total work hours. This increase is primarily attributable to
the significant increase in training hours as a result of the increase
in new hires. Currently, controllers average 4 hours and 46 minutes on-
position. For the remaining 3 hours and 14 minutes, no control
separation duties are assigned.
That said, we are in a transition period with this long-predicted
``wave'' of controller retirements. While the system-wide numbers
remain fairly consistent with prior years, we are focused on some
individual facilities that have greater staffing needs and priorities.
As recommended by the NTSB, the FAA met with NATCA on December 4,
2007, to discuss strategies to reduce the potential for controller
fatigue. Following this meeting, I wrote to NATCA President Patrick
Forrey seeking NATCA's views and analysis of the NTSB's issues. As of
this date, I have received no response.
With respect to our negotiations on the air traffic controller
contract, we have worked diligently to obtain a mutual agreement with
NATCA representatives. After many months of negotiations and weeks with
a Federal Mediator assisting us in our attempt to work toward a
reasonable solution, our dispute was submitted to Congress as required.
Although over 90 percent of the issues were agreed to, an impasse was
declared. It was not an issue of needing more time, but a genuine
difference in opinion regarding the few remaining articles. Pay was the
issue that the parties disagreed over the most. The Federal Labor
Relations Board has ruled on several occasions that the FAA bargained
in good faith and in accordance with the law.
In FY 2007, controllers made an average of $131,800 in cash (salary
and premiums), which was substantially higher than the rest of the FAA
and the rest of government. The top 5,000 controllers averaged $168,000
in cash. As stewards of taxpayer dollars, we simply could not agree to
perpetuate continued excessive cost growth. The FAA could not move
forward, if salaries continued at this rate. The Inspector General, the
Government Accountability Office, and Congress have all criticized the
FAA for its past growth in operating costs.
I will continue to work with NATCA to find a solution to our
differences. I have on two occasions offered substantial settlement
offers to NATCA, which would raise new hire pay, provide base pay
increases for experienced controllers, increase premium pay for
instructors and preserve controller incentive pay. I am hopeful that
NATCA will respond favorably to the most recent offer. Separately, we
will be discussing with NATCA, the implementation of new programs
providing childcare subsidies and tuition reimbursement to our
employees. To help with our recruitment and retention initiatives, I
have authorized use of retention and recruitment incentives and bonuses
in those limited areas where we have staffing challenges. These are the
concerns about the 2006 contract as I understand them from NATCA.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Barbara Boxer to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell
Question 1. Global Hawk UAV flights out of Beale Air Force Base are
limited to just two a week. I understand that one reason for this
restriction is because the FAA lacks sufficient manpower to process and
track Global Hawk flights. What are you doing to solve the flight
restrictions at Beale AFB? Are you working to acquire sufficient
manpower resources to allow more UAV flights? What are your overall
plans to safely integrate the growing fleet of UAVs into the national
airspace?
Answer. The FAA is working closely with the U.S. Air Force to solve
the operational concerns at Beale AFB. Global Hawk, while undoubtedly a
critical military asset, was not designed to fly and be integrated into
the National Airspace System (NAS). The system was designed to fly in
and over a theater of war where airspace is tightly controlled by the
military and no civil traffic is allowed. The FAA worked closely with
the Air Force to find adequate methods to safely protect the flying
public and people on the ground. The restriction to limit flying to 2
days per week was due to a technical flaw in the Global Hawk system
that required the implementation of extra separation precautions by FAA
ATC to ensure an appropriate level of safety is maintained.
Now that the technical flaw has been corrected, the FAA is
participating with the Air Force in test flights to ensure that all
known technical issues have been resolved. Once satisfactorily
completed, we will collaborate with Beale AFB to address their need for
increased operational missions.
The advent of UAS has challenged the aviation community. It is
critical that the record-setting safety levels experienced in the U.S.
today continue. UAS need time to mature as any other new technology. I
am committed to working as diligently as possible to allow for the
safe, progressive integration of UAS into the national airspace.
The FAA is applying resources first to meet our primary mission of
supporting the continued operational safety of the civilian fleet in
the NAS. To address the potential that UAS have on our nation, the
Aviation Safety Organization established the Unmanned Aircraft Program
Office in FY 2006. For the past 2 years, the program office has focused
its resources on meeting the most urgent needs: safely providing
military access, developing standards, civil access and international
leadership. The following summarizes highlights of each of the four
areas:
Military Access. The FAA continues to work with the
Department of Defense to find ways of safely approving military
access of UAS into the NAS. For example, we recently signed a
Memorandum of Agreement with DOD that provides unprecedented
access for a large segment of their arsenal.
Standards Development. For UAS to be completely integrated
into the NAS, avionics standards as well as certification
standards need to be developed.
The FAA is focusing first on the immediate need of
regulation for small UAS. We are establishing an Aviation
Rulemaking Committee made up of a broad representation of
industry, government, and academia to draft potential
regulations for small UAS. This activity is projected to be
completed in approximately 2 years. These UAS will be
operated in daylight hours, visual line of sight from the
pilot, and at a relatively low weight and speed. The
program office will then focus on developing safety and
certification standards for larger, more complex UAS.
Avionics standards are being developed by the Radio
Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA), an industry
forum recognized as a Federal Advisory Committee. Minimum
aviation system performance standards necessary for
complete airspace access are scheduled for delivery around
2019.
Civil Access. The FAA has granted 17 experimental
airworthiness certificates over the past 2 years, and continues
to look for better ways to grant civil access for UAS. We
developed an agreement with the New Mexico State University
(NMSU) in Las Cruces, New Mexico that creates the first UAS
Flight Test Center. The Flight Test Center will allow research
and development activity to be conducted by companies that are
not ready for the experimental application process. This
agreement provides access for companies by allowing NMSU to
establish individual agreements with them. The FAA will be
provided with critical data that will enable the development of
future standards.
International Leadership. The FAA continues to lead the
world in access to airspace for UAS, and plans to play a
leadership role as the international community looks toward
standards development. Recently, the Manager of the FAA Program
Office was named as the U.S. Delegate to the newly formed
International Civil Aviation Organization UAS Study Group. In
addition, the FAA was specifically asked to be the Deputy
Chairman of the European Standards body, EUROCAE WG-73. We plan
to utilize these opportunities to harmonize UAS standards and
airspace access with the global community. Harmonized standards
are vital to the success of U.S. manufacturers.
Question 2. Why does the President's FY09 Budget cut funding for
the Airport Improvements Program even though the December 2007 GAO
report found runway incursions have increased?
Answer. Before proposing the $2.75 billion AIP level for FY 2009,
we looked closely at the impact on airport capital development and our
ability to meet high priority projects, such as those targeted at
reducing runway incursions.
The FAA's reforms for the AIP program contained in our
reauthorization proposal strategically target Federal dollars to the
airports where they will have the most impact. While large and medium
hub airports have a greater ability to finance their own capital
requirements with revenue from passenger facility charges and their own
rates and charges, small primary and general aviation airports rely
more heavily on AIP funding to help meet their capital needs and
complete critical projects. We have proposed changes to the Federal
funding program that will stabilize and enhance these funding sources
for airports. With our proposed programmatic changes, the $2.75 billion
proposed in our budget will be sufficient to finance airports' capital
needs and meet national system safety and capacity objectives. FAA will
be able to reach all high priority safety, capacity, security and
environmental projects in FY 2009, including funding all projects
identified by Runway Safety Action Teams (RSATs).
The FAA has been very focused on improving runway safety and has
spent millions of dollars toward this initiative. Our coordinated
efforts, involving AIP and projects accomplished through other funding,
have helped reduce the most serious of runway incursions by 55 percent
between 2001 and 2007, even though the total number of runway
incursions increased in 2007. We are currently deploying Airport
Surface Detection Equipment-Model X (ASDE-X) to 35 of our busiest
airports (11 systems are fully operational today) and we are expanding
the testing of Runway Status Lights (RWSL) targeted for installation at
21 of those 35 airports. We are testing two Low Cost Ground
Surveillance (LCGS) technologies and are expanding this test to 6
additional airports.
The combination of AIP projects and other agency projects address
the runway incursion problem in FY 2009.
Question 3. The December 2007 GAO report mentioned the FAA may not
be accurately reporting the number and the details of runway incursions
across the country. Why did the FAA not immediately investigate a
possible runway incursion at San Diego airport last month? Please
provide a detailed account of the San Diego incident.
Answer. I am committed to fostering a safety culture within the FAA
that emphasizes full and timely investigations of all safety issues,
particularly runway incursions.
The incident at San Diego occurred on January 16, 2008, and was
immediately entered in the towers daily log by the Controller in
Charge. The Tower Manager returned to the facility after hours
specifically in order to assist in the preliminary investigation of the
incident. The manager reviewed the voice recordings and then requested
a technician be recalled in order to playback the Airport Movement Area
Safety System (AMASS) recording. After reviewing the AMASS recording
the manager determined there was a loss of separation, since the
arrival aircraft had stopped on the runway instead of exiting as
instructed due to an aircraft problem.
The preliminary investigation at the facility concluded that one
aircraft had landed on Runway 27 and when it appeared that the landing
aircraft had turned off the runway onto the taxiway as instructed the
tower controller cleared a departure aircraft for take off. The
incident was initially called in as required and was briefed to the
Western Area Service Center Safety Assurance Specialist as an
operational error. The Safety Assurance Specialist on duty was provided
a briefing, including information obtained from the pilot of the
arrival aircraft that an engine reverser would not stow.
The Safety Assurance Specialist first thought this to be a Pilot
Deviation (PD) but after further discussion decided that only a Quality
Assurance Review (QAR) entry in the daily log would be required. The
Acting Manager complied and completed the QAR as per FAA Order 7210.56
and SAN Order 7210-5 SAN ATCT Quality Assurance Review. The manager
appropriately did not close the QAR pending further investigation. When
the headquarters staff began another review with the Western Service
Center and the facility, more data was ordered and analyzed. It was
discovered that the landing aircraft was on the left side of the runway
and not clear. The final investigation determined the controller had
not ensured the runway was clear but only anticipated it would be and
had cleared the departure aircraft for take off.
The incident was initially thought to be caused by a mechanical
problem that led to a pilot deviating from the instructions given by
air traffic control. However, upon further investigation, it was
determined that the primary cause of the incident was a controller
operational error that resulted in a loss of separation.
It is not unusual for investigations to result in changes to the
preliminary reports of incidents as additional facts and expertise are
brought to bear on the event. The results of this investigation
demonstrated our ability to establish the real root causes of serious
safety concerns and will help to better prevent recurrences.
Question 4. It is my understanding Los Angeles was recently
upgraded to an ACT-12 center. Local controllers have brought to my
attention that management at the facility received a pay increase as a
result of the documented rise in traffic; however, controllers at Los
Angeles did not see similar compensation for the increased workload.
When can controllers at Los Angeles Center expect to receive
compensation for the increased traffic at LAX?
Answer. All employees at Los Angeles Center who were not already
being compensated at or above the top of the ATC-12 pay band received a
pay raise to the ATC-12 pay band as a result of the upgrade of the
facility level.
While management and controller pay rules are different, there are
limits on both. Overall, 58.36 percent of the controller workforce
received a pay increase, and 57.41 percent of the management workforce
received a pay increase at Los Angeles Center.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell
Question 1. Last October, a number of us became aware of the
existence of NASA's air safety study conducted by the Battelle Memorial
Institute. The study was based on surveys of about 8,000 commercial and
general aviation pilots per year from 2001 until the end of 2004. As
you may recall, the reason the whole issue came to light is that NASA
asked those affiliated with the project to turn over any data back to
the agency and delete survey information from their personal computers.
At the time, it was alleged that the survey was turning up many more
reports of incidents than were officially reported to the FAA. In the
end, NASA released the survey data on December 31, 2007, in less than
user friendly format. Has the FAA reviewed the data from NASA's air
safety study?
Answer. NASA provided preliminary summaries of the survey however;
the summaries were very high level and did not provide specifics that
would have allowed us to correlate with our internal information
systems. Subsequently, the FAA has obtained the data set made available
to the public by NASA. However, the data format makes it difficult to
integrate with our internal databases. My plan is to continue to review
the data along with other safety information systems to identify any
safety issues and take appropriate action, if necessary.
Question 1a. If so, is the NASA data regarding the type and
frequency of incidents consistent with the type and frequency of
incidents officially reported to the FAA?
Answer. From these preliminary summaries, it appears that the
numbers for some examples, such as runway incursions, near misses, bird
strikes, and engine failure events, deviate significantly from other
databases with non-elective reporting requirements.
Question 1b. If there is significant difference in the type and
frequency of incidents, can you explain the reason for this difference?
Answer. Event rates were calculated using analyses that were based
upon extrapolation methods to estimate absolute numbers of events
occurring within a given time period. Given that the extrapolated
numbers deviate significantly from other databases, there is reason to
question the validity of this methodology in determining event rates. I
believe that results from the NASA study should be validated by
comparing the survey results, where possible and appropriate, with
other information that was independently gathered. (Note: Congress has
directed NASA to release the raw data to the GAO for analysis by their
aviation experts.)
Question 1c. In press accounts, you have expressed concerns over
the survey's methodology. Can you point to two or three specific issues
with respect to the survey's methodology?
Answer. A review of the questionnaire by the FAA and members of the
Commercial Aviation Safety Team found many of the questions to be
subjective and to rely heavily upon recollections and perceptions of
flight crews over a period of 2 to 3 months. In addition, many
questions were vague or too broad and as a result are of limited value.
Question 1d. It is my understanding that the original study was
terminated before moving on to interview flight attendants and air
traffic controllers, as originally proposed. Do you think surveying
flight attendants and air traffic controllers would have yielded useful
information about flight safety?
Answer. We believe voluntarily submitted reports from flight
attendants and air traffic controllers can yield very useful
information about aviation safety. Since the time of the NASA study,
the FAA and the industry have developed more robust reporting
mechanisms, including the Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP), which
encourages pilots, dispatchers, flight attendants, and maintenance
personnel to report events without fear of retribution. Eleven air
carriers have FAA approved ASAPs in place for their flight attendants.
The FAA Air Traffic Organization is in the process of establishing an
ASAP for air traffic controllers by the Spring of this year. My goal is
to incorporate these segments of the NAS into a formalized process in
which safety information can be accessed through secure networks under
mutually agreeable rules of engagement and to develop a process that
will make this safety information available to decisionmakers to help
them in their efforts to manage risk.
Question 2. Mr. Sturgell, I am concerned about the number of
certified air traffic controllers and how that impacts the FAA's
ability to handle record amounts of air traffic and mitigate delays. I
have been told that there are fewer certified controllers now than any
year since 1996. An agency spokesman has been quoted as saying that
there is no such thing as an unsafe staffing level because the FAA will
slow traffic and put more space between planes if staffing got too low.
If confirmed, would that be your policy as FAA Administrator?
Answer. I am committed to making the safest system in the world
even safer.
We are now overseeing the largest hiring and training initiative
that the FAA has undertaken in decades. Last year, we hired 1,815 new
controllers and are in the process of hiring a similar number this
year. In 2004, we released a comprehensive Controller Workforce Plan
that outlines our hiring and training initiatives, and tracks actual
retirements as well as projecting future losses. The plan can be found
on the FAA website at http://www.faa.gov.
Our staffing ranges provide the number of controllers needed to
perform the work and include all position-qualified controllers. Most
facilities will be in a period of transition over the next few years
and will be staffing with a combination of certified professional
controllers (CPCs), CPCs-In Training, and a large number of
developmental controllers who are proficient, or checked out in
specific sectors or positions. Developmentals have always handled live
traffic, and in fact, this is a requirement to maintain proficiency as
they progress toward CPC status.
Before the 1981 controller strike, the FAA experienced trainee
ratio percentages ranging from 23 to 44 percent. Following the strike
through the end of the hiring wave in 1992, the trainee percentage
ranged from 24 to 52 percent. Because of the mass hiring throughout the
1980s, hiring and training in recent decades have been at low levels.
As such, the ratio of developmentals to controllers has also been
unusually low. Hiring done since 2004 has driven up the ratio again,
but nowhere near the levels experienced by the agency following the
strike. While the FAA's goal is to keep the ratio below 35 percent, the
agency has operated safely with ratios above 35 percent.
It is a real challenge to replace the majority of our controller
workforce over the course of 10 years, but it is a challenge that we
anticipated and for which we planned. We are working aggressively to
stay on top of this challenge through a number of initiatives. These
initiatives target retaining existing controllers (retention bonuses),
attracting veteran controllers (recruitment and relocation bonuses),
and attracting qualified new employees.
During this period of increased hiring and training, the FAA has
continued to keep safety as its top priority. Our current and future
success is all about our people. Their continued professional
commitment to safety and performance is critical.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell
Question 1. Do you believe that the FAA is facing a staffing crisis
concerning the air traffic controller workforce?
Answer. No, I do not believe the FAA is facing an air traffic
controller staffing crisis. However, we are in the midst of the long-
expected retirement ``wave'' of air traffic controllers and it does
present us with a tough management issue. In 2004, the FAA issued the
first comprehensive controller staffing plan. The Congressional report,
A Plan for the Future: a 10-Year Strategy for the Controller Workforce,
detailed the resources needed to keep the controller workforce
appropriately staffed. We update that plan every year to ensure that
the hiring and training of this critical workforce remains on track.
That said, the next several years will be a challenging transition
period. FY 2007 was long projected to be a peak year for retirements of
controllers hired in the years following the controller strike of 1981.
Our retirement projections were not that different from actual numbers,
although actual numbers were 128 higher. Much of that increase can be
attributed to the fact that more than 100 retired controllers became
contract training instructors in FY 2007, allowing FAA to retain their
valuable expertise to train the next generation of controllers.
Still, we are hiring more controllers than we originally projected
and we have launched massive recruitment and training initiatives. In
addition, we have created retention and job enhancement strategies to
attract and retain controllers. We were able to hire more than 1,800
controllers last year, a third of them with previous air traffic
control experience from the military.
Some facilities do have greater staffing priorities and needs. We
are working aggressively to buildup staffing at those facilities
through a number of initiatives targeted toward retaining existing
controllers (retention bonuses), attracting veteran controllers
(recruitment and relocation bonuses), and bringing onboard qualified
new hires.
Question 2. Do you believe that the use of a higher percentage of
trainees versus fully certified controllers will impact the operation
of the national air traffic control system?
Answer. No, I do not. Historically, the FAA has operated safely
with ratios much higher than we are seeing today. Before the 1981
controller strike, the FAA experienced trainee ratio percentages
ranging from 23 to 44 percent. After the strike, through the end of the
hiring wave in 1992, the trainee percentage ranged from 24 to 52
percent.
Only after the wave of post strike controllers progressed to
certified professional controllers did the trainee percentage drop
below 20 percent. Now that we're back to consistently hiring a large
number of new controllers each year, the trainee percentage will
naturally return to higher levels. Our hiring plan strives to keep
trainees below 35 percent of the controller workforce.
Our staffing ranges provide the number of controllers needed to
perform the work and include all position-qualified controllers. Most
facilities will be in a period of transition over the next few years
and will be staffing with a combination of certified professional
controllers (CPCs), CPCs-In Training, and a large number of
developmental controllers who are proficient, or checked out in
specific sectors or positions. Developmentals have always handled live
traffic. In fact, this is a requirement to maintain proficiency as they
progress toward CPC status.
Question 3. On how many occasions since being named Acting
Administrator have you met directly with National Air Traffic
Controller Association officials concerning negotiation of a collective
bargaining agreement?
Answer. I have met personally with the senior executives of NATCA
on at least one occasion in an attempt to work toward a settlement on
the air traffic controllers' contract. In addition, I have discussed
contract issues and the resolution of those issues with NATCA's
leadership. I have also directed three FAA executives to meet with
various NATCA officials to find a common ground and solutions to this
dispute. Additionally, Secretary Peters, NATCA President Patrick
Forrey, and I have met or talked with leadership from the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee several times in hopes of
achieving a settlement.
Question 4. Are you interested in reaching a voluntary agreement
with the air traffic controller employee representatives?
Answer. I would like for every collective bargaining agreement at
the FAA to be voluntary and we have achieved two such voluntary
agreements with NATCA and NAGE in 2007. However, the negotiations
process does not guarantee a voluntary agreement in every instance. In
fact, Congress envisioned this when it created the statutory impasse
procedures for the FAA. The parties were simply too far apart to reach
an agreement on the remaining issues, especially pay. At this point,
the FLRA has ruled the FAA bargained in good faith and a legally
binding contract exists. That said, I have been working with NATCA in
an attempt to settle lingering issues. Although we failed to reach a
voluntary agreement, NATCA and the FAA agreed to 101 of the 110
contract articles. Additionally, NATCA submitted two proposals during
negotiations dealing with child care subsidies and a student loan
repayment program. While these proposals were not adopted during the
negotiations process, I am now implementing programs on child care
subsidies and student loan repayment for all eligible employees of the
FAA and not just NATCA-represented air traffic controllers. We will
meet our bargaining obligations with NATCA on these two programs.
My efforts have not stopped there. I have also made two settlement
offers to NATCA and am awaiting a response on our latest offer. I will
continue the dialogue with NATCA in hopes of reaching a resolution to
our differences.
Question 5. Why hasn't FAA published new procedures for overflow
arrivals on Newark Airport's Runway 29 that would ensure aircraft
separation in the event of lost communications? Did you approve the
decision to allow the approach without publishing the new procedures?
When will FAA publish these procedures?
Answer. FAA Order 7110.65 prescribes the procedures for visual
approaches to multiple runways. At Newark, this order is supplemented
by standard operating procedures, a Letter of Agreement with the New
York Terminal Radar Approach Control facility, and daily coordination
regarding procedures and required spacing between aircraft. In
addition, 14 CFR Federal Aviation 91.185 specifies pilot actions
during two-way radio communications failure. Application of these
procedures and regulations ensures safe aircraft separation.
I asked representatives from ATO and the office responsible for
oversight of air traffic services, Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service
(AOV), to review and approve the revised Runway 29 overflow operations.
Below is some additional background on the work completed.
In January 2008, Newark Tower and New York Terminal Radar Approach
Control (TRACON) personnel met with senior members of the New York
District facilities to review overflow operations to Runway 29 at
Newark. To enhance safety on the Runway 29 operation, restrictions,
conditions, and limits were established. Overflow operations can only
be conducted to Runway 29 in visual meteorological conditions, and
traffic advisories are issued to all aircraft on approach to Newark.
Procedures were approved on the basis that they improve operational
safety at Newark and ensure the safe and efficient control of aircraft
serviced by New York TRACON and adjacent airports.
A clearer and more comprehensive understanding of responsibilities,
roles, and actions emerged for conducting safer overflow operations to
Runway 29 at Newark. New York TRACON developed a facility directive for
this operation, called ``N90 Notice N7110.885, Newark Arrivals to
Overflow Runways on Northeast Flow.'' All managers and operational
personnel at New York TRACON were briefed on this notice.
Question 6. Why hasn't FAA published new procedures for updated
Standard Instrument Departure (SID) dispersal headings on Newark
Airport's Runway 22? Did you approve the decision to allow the new
headings to be used without publishing the new procedures? When will
FAA publish these procedures?
Answer. No new published procedures were required to implement the
dispersal headings that were recently implemented as part of the
Airspace Redesign effort because dispersal headings are used throughout
the system and are allowed under existing conventional procedures and
practices. As part of the implementation, we issued internal procedures
(a Tower Order and Letter of Agreement) to address the dispersal
headings. We are following up with an amendment to the Standard
Instrument Departure (SID) noting additional headings may be assigned
when flying the SID. This information will also be communicated via
Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) and an automatic terminal information service
(ATIS) announcement and will remain in place until new Area Navigation
(RNAV) procedures are in place. We have begun the effort to develop
RNAV procedures that will augment the use of the dispersal headings.
This effort will take up to 18 months.
Question 7. With major changes to the operations in the New Jersey-
New York region due to FAA's implementation of its airspace redesign
plan, how will you ensure safety levels are not decreased?
Answer. Safety is paramount to the operation of the air traffic
system. It has been the cornerstone of my tenure and will continue to
be my focus. As you may recall, enhanced safety is one of the
objectives for the airspace redesign and procedural enhancements in
this vital area of air traffic. We evaluated several indicators of
safety as part of the decision process for the airspace redesign.
We continually monitor safety as a day-to-day operational metric
and are continuing to adapt and enhance our safety evaluation
techniques. The Safety Risk Management process that has been adopted in
the last few years serves as a primary mechanism to assessing and
mitigating potential safety risks.
Question 8. How will FAA ensure that all pilots and controllers are
aware of the new procedures as a result of the agency's NY/NJ/PHL
Airspace Redesign project and that they have sufficient training to
ensure no safety problems are encountered as a result of the change in
procedures?
Answer. As we do with all new procedures and airspace designs, we
will ensure that the appropriate levels of training are provided to our
workforce. We will continue to work with the aviation community to
educate our customers on these changes and to ensure pilot training
meets expected levels.
Education and training are two crucial steps in our implementation
planning processes. Each stage of implementation will last
approximately 12 to 18 months, which will ensure that users and
controllers are familiar with the procedures introduced during that
stage before additional new procedures are introduced as part of an
ensuing stage. We will be applying our Safety Risk Management process
to every phase of implementation to identify and mitigate any potential
safety risks.
For example, before we implemented the departure dispersal headings
at Philadelphia, all controllers were trained and briefed on the
procedures over a period of 30 days. In addition, a NOTAM was issued to
local operators for pilot education.
Question 9. Please describe in detail the delay reductions FAA
expects to occur as a result of each implementation of each stage of
the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign project. What methodology did FAA used
to reach its projections, and what alternative methods for addressing
airline delays in the New Jersey-New York region has FAA considered and
rejected?
Answer. We did not calculate delay reduction for each stage of
implementation, but did calculate delay reduction once Airspace
Redesign project is fully implemented. The time saved under redesigned
operations, compared to a future in which no action is taken, was
estimated from the output of simulations of the various possible
alternative airspace designs, using state-of-the-art modeling
techniques. Appendix C of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
gives the details. This document may be found at: http://www.faa.gov/
airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/nas_redesign/regional_guidance/
eastern_reg/nynjphl_redesign/feis/appendix. As described in chapter 2,
section 2.3, of the EIS, the FAA considered alternative methods
including alternative modes of transportation and communication;
increased use of satellite airports; improvements to airport
infrastructure; congestion management programs; improved air traffic
control technology; and airspace redesign. All but the last were
rejected because they did not meet the purpose and need.
Question 10. What assumptions concerning short-term and long-term
growth in air traffic in the New Jersey-New York region did FAA make in
making its decision to go forward with the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign
project? Do you believe these projections are consistent with other air
traffic projections for the region which FAA and the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey have made?
Answer. A specific forecasting effort was undertaken as part of the
EIS process. This effort was based on an analysis of the market factors
that have historically driven the air traffic demand in the area. Among
the factors that it considered were passenger and jet airway demand,
schedules, and type of equipment. The forecasts, which were developed
early in the project, focused on the 2006 and 2011 planning horizons.
As part of our development of these forecasts, we took into account
information from other sources such as the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey. These projections were generally consistent with other
projections made for the area at the time of the analysis.
Additionally, prior to issuing the Final EIS (FEIS), we conducted a
sensitivity analysis, which appears at appendix B-2 of the FEIS, to
determine whether the project forecasts remained reasonable. They are
consistent with forecasts used by other entities to make their own
planning decisions. Based on our analyses, the forecast assumptions are
accurate, the variations in the forecasts are explainable, and they are
reasonable forecasts to rely upon for decision-making.
Question 11. How many annual flight operations at Newark Liberty
International Airport does FAA expect in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2015,
and 2020? What is the maximum number of hourly flight operations during
peak hours that FAA expects at the airport during these years?
Answer. The latest FAA forecast (released December 2007) is an
unconstrained, economic demand projection. Forecast annual flight
operations at Newark Liberty International Airport are 465,636 in FY
2009, 476,500 in FY 2010, 487,636 in FY 2011, 535,006 in FY 2015, and
601,172 in FY 2020.
According to a recent study completed by MITRE's Center for
Advanced Aviation System Development, which covered the 12 months
ending August 2007, the average adjusted capacity for Newark was 83
operations an hour. See 72 Federal Register 73418 December 27, 2007).
Question 12. Are you aware of the full cost of the NY/NJ/PHL
Airspace Redesign project? How much has the agency spent on the
project? How much does the agency believe it will spend on the project
in future years, and specifically in FY 2008 and FY 2009?
Answer. The FAA has spent over $53M over the last 10 years on the
redesign effort, the majority of that going to the environmental
process and to resources to support full participation of the
controller workforce in the design effort (backfill overtime and
travel). We expect to spend approximately $3M each year in Fiscal Years
2008 and 2009, which are operations costs for developing procedures and
training. Future spending plans are being developed along with the
planning for each stage of the implementation.
Once fully implemented, we conservatively estimate over $300
million dollar annual savings in direct operating costs.
Question 13. Why didn't FAA complete a cost-benefit analysis before
moving forward with the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign project? Do you
believe that the FAA should complete cost-benefit analyses before
moving forward with major non-safety-related projects that will affect
hundreds of thousands of people? Is FAA conducting a cost-benefit
analysis? If so, when will it be made public?
Answer. A cost-benefit analysis was not completed for the Airspace
Redesign project, as it was not required as part of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This does not mean we are not
aware of the benefits of this project. Once fully implemented, airspace
redesign will reduce delays by 20 percent, reduce the number of
individuals exposed to noise by over 600,000, and reduce fuel burn.
Question 14. Do you feel that FAA should comply with Executive
Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks'' (62 CFR 19883, April 23, 1997) or Appendix A,
Section 16.1b of FAA Order 1050.1E, which specifically require the FAA
to focus on the vulnerability of children to noise? In its
implementation of the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign project, has the FAA
complied with this Executive Order and FAA order? If not, why not? If
so, please state how the FAA has complied.
Answer. We are in compliance with both Executive Order 13045 and
FAA Order 1050.1E. Once fully implemented, the selected project would
not result in significant noise impacts to any residents including
children within the study area. Additionally, the noise analysis
included considering noise impacts to schools and parks in the study
area. No schools or parks were identified as significantly impacted by
the selected project. Last, there would be a net benefit to air quality
as a result of the selected project.
Question 15. On May 1, 2007, the FAA promised in a public meeting
last year in Tinicum, Pennsylvania, that a comprehensive safety risk
assessment of the implementation of the new headings under the NY/NJ/
PHL Airspace Redesign plan would be conducted before the new headings
were implemented. Were you aware of this promise? Do you believe the
FAA should complete this risk assessment before implementing the new
headings? Has this risk assessment been completed? If not, has it been
made available to the public for comment? Please provide the Committee
with the assessment, any comments received, and FAA's course of action?
Answer. I am aware that safety of the implementation of the NY/NJ/
PHL Airspace Redesign was, and is, a concern. I am committed, as are
all the FAA leaders associated with this effort, to ensuring the
highest levels of safety as we implement this important project.
Assignment of headings to a departure is a technique that is used by
air traffic controllers throughout the country and is a safe procedure.
After the partial implementation of the dispersal headings on December
19, 2007, at Philadelphia International and Newark Liberty
International Airports, we began developing formal departure procedures
using area navigation (RNAV) techniques. On May 1, 2007, at an FAA-
sponsored public meeting on the proposed noise mitigation strategies,
this issue about a safety review was raised by one of the attendees. In
response, my project manager described the RNAV process and indicated
that one of the steps in the development of these procedures is a
safety review consistent with the Safety Risk Management process
described previously. The safety review is an internal process to the
FAA and is not normally distributed to the public for comment. This
safety review will be completed for all appropriate elements of the
Airspace Redesign.
Question 16. How will the policies you pursue as FAA Administrator
differ from policies pursued under Administrator Blakey?
Answer. There's one question that all FAA Administrators wrestle
with every day--what can I do to make flying safer? I'll be no
different.
If confirmed, I pledge to keep the United States at the forefront
of aviation safety. No other nation comes close to matching what we've
done to save lives and prevent accidents. In partnership with you and
our stakeholders in the private sector, I will work to:
Continue to improve what is already the safest
transportation system in history. My highest priority is
safety. I have focused on it throughout my career in the Navy,
as a commercial pilot, and at the NTSB and FAA. We are
addressing the problem of runway incursions. But that is by no
means all. I make a personal commitment to you that the FAA
will continue to lead the world in setting the highest
standards of safety for the aviation industry.
Ensure that the FAA has a workforce second to none. We have
launched a massive recruitment and training initiative, and
have created retention and job enhancement strategies. I intend
to make sure that the FAA has the safety professionals,
controllers and other experts we need to keep the system safe
and efficient. I want to assure you that I will continue to
rely on the experts in our workforce and seek their advice on
issues ranging from implementation of NextGen to operational
safety.
Address congestion and delay in our aviation system. My
vision is that aviation must remain an enabler of economic
growth, not a chokepoint. We must expand capacity to meet
demand. Our capital programs are on track, and I intend to keep
them that way. NextGen is the key to the aviation system's
future, and I want to push development as hard as we can.
System-wide, we are introducing new technologies ranging from
satellite-based navigation and air traffic management to runway
lights. We are taking steps to reduce delay at the Nation's
most congested airports, with particular focus on New York.
Meanwhile, we are working to expand capacity at other airports
around the country.
Question 17. Does the FAA use noise assessment models which are
consistent with those currently used by the Environmental Protection
Agency? If not, why not?
Answer. The responsibility for local, regional, and global aircraft
noise impact analyses lies with the FAA, not the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). FAA thus assumes the responsibility for
developing and using aircraft noise assessment models. FAA's model is
the de facto standard for aircraft noise modeling around the world,
with over 1,100 users including 72 countries. If EPA were to conduct an
aircraft noise assessment, EPA would use FAA's model.
Question 18. Why does the FAA continue to use the Schultz Curve
noise assessment model? Do you believe use of this model accurately
portrays air noise exposure by residents?
Answer. The Schultz Curve is not a noise assessment model. It
portrays the statistical percentage of the population that is likely to
be highly annoyed by various levels of transportation noise, based on a
body of social surveys. The Schultz Curve was subsequently reaffirmed
by a study done by the U.S. Air Force, and it remains today as the best
available approach in use for predicting community reaction to noise
exposure.
Question 19. Why does the FAA continue to rely exclusively on the
Day-Night sound Level (DNL) noise metric? Do you believe this model
effectively accounts for very loud noise exposures?
Answer. FAA uses DNL as the primary metric to quantify noise
exposure because there are no other metrics with sufficient scientific
standing to substitute for DNL. DNL does account for very loud noise
exposure because the calculated DNL level is heavily governed by the
loudest aircraft events. FAA also uses other supplemental metrics in
addition to DNL on a case-by-case basis. Supplemental noise metrics
include single event metrics such as SEL (sound exposure level) and
Lmax (maximum sound level), cumulative or time based metrics such as
Leq (equivalent sound level), TA (time above), audibility, and SPL
(sound pressure level). FAA uses these metrics to help the public
understand noise impacts and to develop noise analyses for sleep
disturbance, speech interference, and special areas such as national
parks, and for assessing the effectiveness of soundproofing.
Question 20. What is the maximum number of hourly flight operations
which can be accommodated at Newark Liberty International Airport,
given its current physical layout constraints? Do you believe that the
NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign project will allow for more hourly
operations than can currently be handled by this airport given its
current layout?
Answer. According to a recent study completed by MITRE's Center for
Advanced Aviation System Development, which covered the 12 months
ending August 2007, the average adjusted capacity for Newark was 83
operations an hour. See 72 Federal Register 73418 (December 27, 2007).
The Airspace Redesign project is intended to increase the
efficiency of the airspace. To the extent that delays in the airspace
have historically resulted in airport delays, increases in airspace
efficiency will permit the optimal use of existing airport capacity.
Question 21. Why did the FAA omit noise and emissions mitigation
from the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign project's ``purpose and need''
statement?
Answer. The FAA complies with NEPA regulations issued by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) with respect to the content and
format of NEPA documents. According to CEQ regulations, the Purpose and
Need section of a NEPA document explains why the agency is proposing
the alternatives, including the proposed action. The redesign of New
York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace was needed to accommodate
aviation growth while maintaining safety and mitigating delays, and to
accommodate changes in the types of aircraft using the system. Although
reduction of noise was not included in the purpose and need for the
project, the FAA recognized that aircraft noise was the major issue
raised in agency and public comments throughout the EIS process. During
the environmental process, FAA committed to using the various
techniques to reduce aircraft noise and other potential environmental
impacts, including increasing altitudes, dispersing or concentrating
tracks where appropriate, reducing flying time, and routing aircraft
over less noise-sensitive areas where feasible. In addition, a
reduction in delay will generally equate to a reduction in emissions.
Question 22. Do you believe that the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign
project will increase airport capacity?
Answer. Actually, the project is not designed to increase airport
capacity. Airport capacity is a direct result of the available ground
facilities at a given airport. Any project that does not directly
increase these facilities cannot increase airport capacity.
Similarly, airspace capacity is a direct function of the boundaries
and volume of available airspace. Any project that does not increase
the volume of airspace cannot increase airspace capacity. A project
such as the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign seeks to use that available
airspace capacity in a more efficient way. It does not increase
airspace capacity. It does, however, improve efficiency and
throughput--resulting in less delay.
Question 23. Do you believe that air quality will be affected by
the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign project?
Answer. The fuel burn analysis conducted for this project showed
that when compared to the ``No Action Alternative,'' our redesign would
reduce aircraft fuel consumption by approximately 23 million gallons
annually or 194 metric tons per average day once fully implemented.
This, in turn, reduces emissions.
Question 24. Do you believe it is fair to the residents of the City
of Elizabeth to be exposed to substantially more noise in order to gain
an additional 1 or 2 operations per hour at Newark airport as a result
of the FAA's dispersal headings implemented as part of the FAA's NY/NJ/
PHL Airspace Redesign project?
Answer. We do not expect residents of the City of Elizabeth to
experience any significant increase in noise at any time as a result of
our Airspace Redesign, as documented in the EIS released last year.
Question 25. If confirmed, will you ensure that FAA Order 7050.1 is
followed?
Answer. I appointed a permanent Director of Runway Safety and
charged him with the task of updating the order and ensuring that it is
followed. Compliance with the order will be a performance goal for the
Director.
In addition, we have created the Air Traffic Safety Oversight
Service (AOV) within the Aviation Safety Organization. AOV is tasked to
conduct oversight of the safety of ATO's provision of air traffic
services in the NAS. AOV's functions include oversight of ATO's
compliance orders and directives. This system of checks and balances
will ensure the Runway Safety Order is updated and followed.
Question 26. If confirmed, will you ensure that the FAA prepare an
updated national runway safety plan? How will you ensure that this plan
is carried out?
Answer. I have directed an update of the National Runway Safety
Plan (NRSP) to be published this year. The high level goals and
objectives of the NRSP will be included in the FAA's Flight Plan and
will be tracked to ensure accomplishment. In addition, the NRSP will
have more detailed goals, objectives and initiatives that will be
tracked, not only by each FAA Line of Business but also by the Runway
Safety Office, and included in executives' performance plans. The plan
and results will be briefed as a standing agenda item at our monthly
FAA performance meetings. Runway safety is vitally important and I will
not let up in demanding compliance with the plan and improvements
through reducing the number and severity of runway incursions.
Question 27. What has been your role in overseeing FAA's Office of
Civil Rights since arriving at the agency?
Answer. Since arriving at FAA, the FAA Office of Civil Rights (ACR)
has received and continues to receive my support and the necessary
resources to carry out an effective and efficient Civil Rights Program.
The Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights is a member of my
Management Board. Under my leadership, we have achieved significant
accomplishments in outreach efforts, disabled veteran hiring, and civil
rights programs, to name only the most recent efforts below.
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO):
On January 24, 2008, I renewed education partnerships with
the Organization of Black Airline Pilots (OBAP) and the
International Black Aerospace Council (IBAC). The alliances
will be of mutual benefit to FAA, OBAP, and IBAC by increasing
each organization's outreach outlets and maximizing resources.
The agreements help foster the agency's education outreach
efforts to underrepresented student populations.
I have been very supportive of increasing resources for
minority recruitment and hiring efforts, as a means to increase
diversity at FAA. The strategy we are using is to place
emphasis on increasing the applicant pool for people with lower
than expected participation rates. As a result, in FY 2007, FAA
increased the applicant pool for several minority groups.
I have supported other efforts which have contributed to the
efficiency of processing EEO pre-complaints and increasing awareness of
EEO responsibilities. These efforts include:
Using dedicated, full-time EEO Counselors, who were
identified from existing resources. This allowed ATO and other
lines of business employees to perform mission-critical work,
instead of collateral duty counseling. A six-month evaluation
revealed a more efficient EEO pre-complaint program.
Implementing E-filing, an automated ``in-take'' system, on
July 15, 2007.
Providing training to 5,404 (97 percent) FAA supervisors and
managers and 37,338 (96 percent) employees, including
bargaining unit employees, on EEO rights and responsibilities
and the provisions of the Notification and Federal Employee
Anti-discrimination and Retaliation (No FEAR) Act to meet the
Office of Personnel Management requirements.
Developing and implementing a course on appropriate EEO
behaviors, in an effort to prepare new FAA hires. In FY 2007,
the course was provided to 1,265 employees; 754 new hires and
511 managers and other employees.
Hiring Disabled Veterans Program:
I have also supported special programs that focus on hiring
disabled veterans. In August 2007, we implemented the Veterans
Training Program (VTP) for air traffic control specialist
(ATCS) and airway transportation system specialist (ATSS)
positions. Participants in the program are brought on-board as
volunteers under the agency's non-paid work experience
provision. Feedback from the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) on the low participation rate in FAA's VTP revealed that
veterans were concerned about the cost of maintaining two
households while enrolled in training at the FAA Academy. As a
result of this concern, FAA will begin hiring VTP participants
as employees under temporary appointments, which will permit
the agency to pay the veterans' transportation and per diem
while in training at the Academy.
Under my direction, we are working with the Department of
Defense's Operation War Fighter Program and the VA's Coming
Home to Work Program to identify and place service members
pending discharge from the military. FAA actively recruits
veterans who are eligible for appointment under the Veterans
Recruitment Appointment (VRA) Authority. VRA vacancy
announcements for air traffic control specialist positions are
posted on a monthly basis.
These efforts have resulted in the FAA workforce statistics
showing that the number of veterans with disabilities increased
from 4.6 percent in FY 2006 to 5.01 percent in FY 2007; and the
number of veterans with a disability of 30 percent or more
increased from 1.61 percent in FY 2006 to 1.82 percent in FY
2007.
Airports' Civil Rights Programs:
Another important function that I oversee with ACR is the Civil
Rights Programs at Airports. The agency:
Reviewed 782 plans developed by Airport Grant recipients to
ensure equal opportunities for Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE) participation in the Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) contracting and concession projects.
Supported airport sponsors in implementing an airport DBE
concession rule by acquainting them with the requirements of
the rule and developing guidance documents. This equated to a
review of 80 concession DBE goal methodologies for primary
airports.
Supported airport sponsors and DBE's by conducting
consultations, training and briefings on the DBE Program,
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VI, Limited
English Proficiency (LEP) and other civil rights regulations so
that the aviation community is aware of civil rights
requirements.
Supported participation in many events to further promote
the External Program to our airport customers. This past year,
FAA co-sponsored a Universal Access Conference which included
sessions on the ADA, the Air Carrier Access Act, Universal
Design, Emergency Preparedness, and Terminal Transportation. We
also co-sponsored with the Airport Minority Advisory Council
the third largest aviation conference in the country addressing
civil rights requirements at airports.
Question 28. What methodology did FAA use in determining which
airport control tower locations would receive the newer-technology
Tower Simulation System (TSS)? Why wasn't Newark Liberty International
Airport selected as receiving this new system? Will the facility
receive the new system? If so, when?
Answer. Newark is not currently scheduled to receive the Tower
Simulation System (TSS), but controllers there will be able to benefit
from the simulation training offered nearby. John F. Kennedy
International Airport (JFK) was picked as the central hub site for the
TSS. When the system is used at a ``hub'' facility, each satellite
facility within commuting distance of the hub has a database on file at
the hub ready to use for training. This allows one simulator to train
developmental controllers at many nearby airports.
The decision to place the TSS at JFK was based on FAA Net Present
Value calculations. These calculations took into consideration the
number of controllers that were being trained at a given location and
the cost to deploy the equipment. When this analysis was completed last
fall, JFK was expected to have more new hires than Newark and
LaGuardia. Both LaGuardia and JFK were also expected to have more
certified professional controllers in training than Newark.
The number of training events over the next several years is the
key factor in the hub and a spoke system. Each location needed
additional spoke facilities to make the acquisition work. Since none of
the other facilities could justify the acquisition and because JFK had
the highest net present value, it was chosen to receive the TSS.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Thomas R. Carper to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell
Question 1. As you know, the Philadelphia International Airport is
located less than 30 miles from Wilmington, allowing it to provide
convenient service to many Delawareans. Yet, this proximity also
creates some noise pollution from air traffic over northern New Castle
County. What is the current status of noise abatement activity at and
around the Philadelphia International Airport? As we expand airport
capacity, how do you intend to address noise abatement through the
latest technologies?
Answer. The Philadelphia International Airport (PHL) undertook a
Noise Compatibility Study in 2002 under 14 CFR Part 150 and developed
an 18-point Noise Compatibility Program (NCP). FAA approved that NCP in
2003. Key measures in that NCP include a noise monitoring system and an
active residential sound insulation program. FAA is funding a large
portion of the insulation program in accordance with the guidelines we
use for similar programs at airports throughout the U.S.
PHL's approved NCP also includes a published noise abatement
departure procedure called the PHILADELPHIA SEVEN DEPARTURE SID
(Standard Instrument Departure). That procedure routes aircraft over
the Delaware River until they reach 3,000 feet, above ground level,
when pilots turn on to their planned flight paths. PHL has used this
procedure for a number of years and continues to use it at night
between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. as well as other times during
light traffic periods, even with the recent implementation of the NY/
NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign Program.
The NCP also recommended implementation of Continuous Descent
Arrivals (CDA) at PHL during nighttime hours. This CDA has been studied
as part of the selected project of the NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign and
will be implemented in a future stage as a mitigation measure. This
will be done in accordance with the project's Record of Decision (ROD).
Using FAA funds, the City of Philadelphia is now updating the NCP
FAA approved in 2003. During that update, the city will reexamine all
of its noise abatement measures in light of the recent extension of the
airport's crosswind runway (RWY 17/35) and FAA's implementation of the
Airspace Redesign procedures. Those actions should be completed in
about a year.
We are also nearing completion of a major Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for a Capacity Enhancement Program (CEP). In that EIS,
we are examining new runway configurations to reduce delays at PHL.
Mitigation measures considered under the CEP may well include further
expansion of the residential sound insulation efforts already underway.
However, it is important to note that FAA has not yet released the
Draft EIS for the CEP, so it is uncertain about the mitigation measures
that the CEP will eventually include. FAA expects to release the Draft
in September 2008.
As for the residents of Delaware, aircraft noise exposure levels
throughout northern New Castle County, Delaware, under the CEP out to
2020 and 2025, are well below Federal guidelines for compatible land
use. In fact, they are below EPA's recommended 55-decibel level below
which there is no reason to suspect that the general population will be
at risk from any of the identified effects of noise. The greatest
potential for improved noise levels in that area will come from the
reduced noise emission levels of new aircraft as they enter the fleet,
replacing older, noisier aircraft.
FAA continues to seek ways to abate noise with new technologies and
operational procedures. FAA's reauthorization proposal, reflected in
the President's FY 2009 budget, includes authorization and funding, to
accelerate technologies to make aircraft quieter, cleaner and more
energy-efficient. Aircraft operational strategies, such as CDA, are
being actively pursued by the FAA to reduce noise, as well as improve
air quality. The Administration's reauthorization proposal also
includes provisions for demonstrating new technologies and procedures
in the airport environment, and strengthening airport environmental
research through the Airport Cooperative Research Program.
Question 2. How do you intend to approach the issue of the pending
court challenges to the FAA's Airspace Redesign Plan for the New York/
New Jersey/Pennsylvania Region? What do you think we can do to
strengthen the noise component of the required Environmental Impact
Studies--to reflect that noise pollution is indeed an environmental
impact?
Answer. We are currently facing twelve legal challenges to the
Airspace Redesign project. All challenges are before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. As the Acting Administrator, it
is my responsibility to support legal counsel as they defend the FAA's
decision to proceed with the Airspace Redesign project. Beyond this
background material, we cannot provide substantive comments on matters
in active litigation.
Noise is clearly identified as an environmental impact in FAA's
environmental guidance and FAA environmental documents. The FAA
currently places emphasis on assessing aircraft noise impacts and
mitigating impacts to the extent possible. That was done in the EIS for
the Airspace Redesign. We continue to seek ways to improve upon both
our assessment and mitigation capabilities.
Question 3. Air traffic controller staff levels are declining at
record levels. Not only are more controllers retiring early at age 50,
but the retention rate of trainees is dropping. At Philadelphia
International Airport, the FAA had formerly authorized 109 controllers.
Early last year, the figure was reduced to a range of 71-87
controllers. What was the justification for this reduction? Of the 86
controllers currently at Philadelphia, 25 percent are in training and
25 percent are retirement eligible. Clearly, this is not a sustainable
state of affairs. If you are confirmed as FAA Administrator, what will
you do about the air traffic controller staffing shortages at
Philadelphia and across the country? Will you work with the controllers
to reach a long-awaited labor agreement?
Answer. It is important to understand that the previously
authorized staffing numbers for Philadelphia International Airport
(PHL) are from a negotiated distribution of a national total controller
headcount between the union and the FAA. They do not represent the
number of employees needed to staff the facility based on traffic
levels at that facility. In fact, the previous staffing agreement
referred only to ``bargaining unit employees'' without reference to
certified professional controllers (CPCs), CPCs-In Training,
developmental controllers, traffic leads, or other similar factors.
In 2007, the agency developed staffing ranges for all 314 FAA
operated air traffic facilities, including Philadelphia, based on the
complexity of the airspace, traffic and the number of positions needed
to work that traffic.
Philadelphia is an important airport in the NAS and is closely
monitored to ensure adequate staffing. But staffing levels are not the
only indicator we look at to determine the relative health of a
facility. Overtime and training ratios are important too. Our overall
system average for overtime is 1.9 percent. Overtime at Philadelphia is
currently averaging 0.9 percent (or about 20 minutes a week). The
developmental ratio at Philadelphia is also well within normal levels,
with a developmental ratio today at about the same level as the ratio
was in 2000.
If confirmed as Administrator, I will continue to work with
controllers to resolve lingering issues with the 2006 contract. We have
made several settlement offers to the National Air Traffic Controllers
Association to address key issues raised by the controllers (including
new employee pay and raises for senior controllers).
Controller Hiring and Training
We are now overseeing the largest hiring and training initiative
that the FAA has undertaken in decades. Last year we hired 1,815 new
controllers, and are in the process of hiring a similar number this
year. In 2004, we released a comprehensive Controller Workforce Plan
that outlines our hiring and training initiatives, and tracks actual
retirements as well as projecting future losses. The plan can be found
on the FAA website at http://www.faa.gov.
It is a real challenge to replace the majority of our controller
workforce over the course of 10 years, but it is a challenge that we
anticipated and for which we planned. Some of our facilities have
staffing challenges and needs. We are working aggressively to stay on
top of this challenge through a number of initiatives. These
initiatives target retaining existing controllers (retention bonuses),
attracting veteran controllers (recruitment and relocation bonuses),
and attracting qualified new employees.
For example, to attract qualified new employees, I am expanding the
Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) program again in
2008 to allow new schools to apply. Currently, we have 23 schools in
the program--14 original schools and nine new schools added as a result
of our FY 2007 solicitation. This will result in more qualified
controller applicants for the FAA. My goal is to have up to 35 AT-CTI
schools in the program graduating between 2,000-2,500 students per year
by FY 2010. I also announced nationwide public sector announcements for
air traffic controllers. The last announcement closed on February 15
and generated 4,515 applications.
To expedite processing new hires once they have been selected, I
created Pre-Employment Processing Centers, to streamline the processing
(medical, security, interviewing, testing, etc.) of new hires. New
hires can now come onboard as soon as 3 weeks from when they receive
their offer.
Once onboard, we are also ramping up our efforts and initiatives on
the training side to accommodate the higher volume of controller
trainees. These initiatives include the use of technology and
simulation, adding a third shift to our FAA Academy training courses,
and streamlining the amount of time it takes for controllers to become
certified by making sure training remains a priority.
Our current and future success is all about our people. Their
continued professional commitment to safety and performance is critical
to the FAA meeting its goals.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison to
Hon. Robert A. Sturgell
Question. The FAA is currently operating under a partial extension
which is set to expire on February 29. Could you describe the short and
long-term implications of allowing that extension to expire?
Specifically, what impact would it have on the airport improvement
program and your modernization efforts?
Answer. I am pleased that Congress has acted to pass an extension
of our authorities--this time until June 30th, which the President
signed into law on February 28, 2008. The FAA will conduct normal
operations through the June 30th deadline, including being able to
provide Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants. As you know, prior to
the passage of this latest extension, we have been unable to make any
new AIP grants this fiscal year.
However, I must note that these short-term extensions are certainly
not a good way to manage our agency programs. I understand the
difficulties of the legislative agenda and the challenges involved in
completing action on a multi-year aviation reauthorization bill but I
believe that the prudent path is to complete reauthorization. It is in
the best interest of aviation safety and efficiency to avoid further
short-term extensions of our programs.
At the end of June we will once again face the prospect of
significant disruptions to our day-to-day operations. FAA will not be
able to spend any funds from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF),
including from the uncommitted balance. Approximately eighty-four
percent of the FAA's FY 2008 budget is funded from the AATF. This will
have very serious consequences and impacts for the FAA's AATF-
appropriated accounts, including the AIP, Facilities & Equipment (F&E),
and Research, Engineering & Development (RE&D) accounts, along with the
Trust Fund portion of the Operations account. Most notably, our
airports, facilities and equipment and research personnel would be
immediately sent home, and our remaining personnel would follow after
funding provided by the General Fund has been fully obligated.
After June 30, the authority to collect most aviation-related
excise taxes that provide approximately 95 percent of the Trust Fund's
revenue will lapse. The uncommitted balance in the Trust Fund
(approximately $1.5 billion at the close of FY 2007), which could only
be tapped if Trust Fund expenditure authority is extended, is
insufficient to sustain FAA operations beyond a few months and a lapse
in the collection authority could very quickly begin to impact FAA's
operations.
Without access to capital funding from the Trust Fund, we would
also be unable to make any new AIP grants after June 30.
I strongly urge the Congress to avoid yet another short-term
extension. We remain ready to work with this Committee and others in
Congress to enact a full-fledged reauthorization proposal that is
consistent with the key principles the Administration has put forth for
a stable, transparent, cost-based funding structure. These reforms
should better align costs and revenues, treat all stakeholders fairly
and provide dedicated funding to enable our aviation system to
transform to NextGen so that it may meet ever increasing and changing
demands in the most safe and efficient ways possible.