AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA. INC.

1725 DE SALES STREET. N W.. WASHINGTON, D. C.. 20036 TEL 347.2315

July 1, 1981

The Honorable Dan Glickman

Chairman

Subcommittee on Transportation,

Aviation and Materials

Committee on Science and Technology
U. S. House of Representatives
2321 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

A question was raised at your hearings on June 18, 1981, regarding the AIA testimony to which we promised an answer. Representative Dunn inquired as to the dollar savings that would be realized by the upgraded computer in combination with the "4-D" Flight Management System, as described in Figure 1 of the testimony.

U. S. airlines paid $10.6 billion for fuel in 1980. Based on our estimate of 4-8% fuel saving with the equipment installed in approximately 50% of the fleet by 1991 (Fig. 4), the saving would be between $212 and $424 million per year. With the "4-D" equipment in the airplane but without the enhanced computer capability, the estimated fuel savings drops to 1-2%, or $53 to $106 million per year. Therefore, savings attributable to the enhanced computer capability would be $159-$318 million per year in 1980 dollars, with average fuel cost approximately $1.00 per gallon.

Thank you for this opportunity to fully answer your questions. If we can be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to call on us.

Mr. DUNN. My concern is the $3 billion is taxpayers' money, but if we can justify to the taxpayers that indeed in spending the $3 billion now, you will be saving it in the price of airline tickets in the future, it seems a very viable justification for the expenditure of the dollars, other than the obvious safety factor.

Mr. SNODGRASS. It is a subtantial sum in dollars, not only for the fuel saving, but for the reduction in delays. Right now, the airlines are spending hundreds of millions of dollars just in air traffic delays in a year's time. If you eliminate those, you get both the fuel and the cost of the salaries, the depreciation, and all of the other factors that add to the costs of the airline.

Mr. DUNN. In your chart No. 2, you talk about arrival at, I guess it would be the outer markers you are talking about there, a 1- or 2-second deviation. You are saying the new computers could get it down that close?

Mr. SNODGRASS. Yes, sir, we have demonstrated it.

Mr. DUNN. That is pretty unbelievable. Do you have any idea what the standard deviation is today? I don't. I know it is a lot more than 1 or 2 seconds.

Mr. SNODGRASS. We are talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 18 to 20 seconds with onboard equipment in the airplane, but using the current system on the ground.

Mr. DUNN. One of the other witnesses yesterday talked about the new system in conjunction with changes in the way we use those computers, and without reprioritizing how ATC handles aircraft, that the benefits of the new computers to a large extent would be mitigated. Would you agree there will have to be more structural changes in personnel job descriptions along with the new computers?

Mr. SNODGRASS. You can't just pick up a computer and jam it into the system. You have to have a system that is designed first and then a computer that matches its capability to the system requirements. And so you are going to have a new look to the whole air traffic control system when you finally get the finished product or the "further down the road" product. We will probably never see a finished product, I am sure.

Mr. DUNN. There is a suggestion we go to an interim system. Mr. SNODGRASS. We don't think very highly of that because of past experience. When you get an interim system, it tends to take the pressure off the development of a final and better system, both from a fiscal standpoint and from a technical standpoint. If you say "Let's live with this one a little longer, we have it moving," I think we tend to agree fairly well with the FAA's earlier testimony here.

Mr. DUNN. If we choose not to go to the interim system, then, of necessity, we are going to be living with the current system longer while we develop the brand-new system.

One of the big concerns in living with the existing system for a longer time is the question of outages, the question of safety while we get to that new system.

In your opinion, do the number of outages that occur today, or the potential in the next 5, 6, or 7 years while we are changing, do they represent a safety hazard?

Mr. SNODGRASS. If you lose data that you are controlling on, obviously there will be a safety factor involved there. I think

perhaps with some careful attention we can reduce it, even with the existing equipment. But if we are not going the interim route, a decision we recommend, we would like to see an expedited development effort of the new system.

I agree with Mr. Israel that all of these steps specified by A109 are going to be needed. We are a little further down the road, really, than starting from square one on the system.

Mr. DUNN. You are in the business of procuring computers for the aircraft industry. I will ask the same question I asked of the last witness: If Congress mandated a date to make a decision as to which computer we are going to be buying, how much time does FAA need?

Mr. SNODGRASS. I think they ought to come up with a pretty well-developed answer in a year's time, or maybe even less. Mr. DUNN. Thank you very much.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Snodgrass. I think Mr. Dunn has essentially asked all the questions I would have asked.

We appreciate your appearance today.

The subcommittee will take a brief recess.

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL J. SIMONS, DIRECTOR OF AIR SAFETY; THOMAS GALLOWAY, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER; KENNETH WEBB, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER, AND C. STEPHEN ELLIOTT, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER, PROFESSIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ORGANIZATION

Mr. SIMONS. I am Michael Simons. I am the Director of Air Safety for the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization. With me this morning are three professional air traffic controllers, all from the Washington area.

On my far left, Mr. Stephen Elliott, controller at Washington National Airport. He has been a controller for 10 years, both at the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center for 8 years, and then at the Washington National Airport since 1978.

Mr. Elliott also represents the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization on the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee, which is an advisory committee consisting of representatives of approximately 20 aviation organizations which advises the FAA on air traffic procedures.

Next to Mr. Elliott is Mr. Kenneth Webb. He is a controller at the Washington Center, has been with the FAA as an air traffic controller since 1975, and he is the safety chairman for the PATCO local at the Washington Center.

On my immediate left, Mr. Thomas Galloway, a controller at the Washington Center. He has been a controller for 11 years, has held many offices in the Local at the Washington Center and is currently the president of the PATCO Local in Leesburg.

Mr. GLICKMAN. You may proceed as you wish, Mr. Simons.

Mr. SIMONS. The Federal Aviation Administration's air traffic control computer modernization program is of vital interest, not only to our members, but to all those who fly, and, indeed, to every American who is a user, directly or indirectly, of our national airspace system.

I am particularly heartened to see that this subcommittee is taking an early interest in the development of FAA's next genera

82-375 O 81 13