Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

ches that the technological community is going to want o take in the future.

nean to be too cryptic about that.

TTAKER. I know what you're speaking about.

KMAN. Mr. Dunn?

NN. Mr. Chairman, I just heard these two gentlemen our government is operating under a master plan. As a I haven't been able to figure it out. If you'd want to tell n what that master plan is, I'd be glad to hear about it. KIN. If the gentleman would yield, if this Government nder a master plan, that's when I want to move to some try. I don't want to operate under some master plan of ment. [Laughter.]

CKMAN. I think Mr. Helms may have a master plan, so to tell you about it. Mr. Carney?

NEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Whittaker, do you 's necessary to have an interim system while we work on eneration control system, that the present one, indeed, ndle the necessary traffic requirements in the timeframe ld take to implement the new one?

TTAKER. Based upon my previous experience in dealing AA-and I want to qualify that because I think that er a completely different type of leadership now from ow of Mr. Helms-but if it were based on what I saw from Administrator Langhorne Bond, I would say very we will have to have an interim system.

even for sure whether it wouldn't be a good idea, he technology that is coming on board, the various faceping the system from being fragmented, tying in a stem with the primary en route and approach systems, with the collision avoidance system, may be so complex I be, as the FAA states, literally years before the design be put into place.

we've got very substantive evidence which gives rise to ous concern, with the outages that we're experiencing the present system. I can envision, if it were possible, an stem without the expenditure of that much money using ty of components——

NEY. What is that amount, if I may interrupt?

ITTAKER. I have heard estimates for a completely new ywhere from $4 to $6 billion. That's brand new, from

ld suggest maybe an interim system from the $300,000 to $800,000 range, which

NEY. $300 million?

ITTAKER. Excuse me, million. I'm sorry. Yes, you're corlease don't hold me to that because I am not enough of a analyst or an expert to really be able to make a really estimate of that. But certainly nothing that would as the FAA would contend, the putting on line of the 1 replacement system in the mid-1990s, if that's what rking toward.

NEY. I'm somewhat confused. Is the state of the art here on a brandnew system? Is it just money?

Mr. WHITTAKER. No, I'm not sure that it is and that's the reason why I am at this moment, on your questioning, saying that I think an interim system would be in order. I'm not sure that we have reached the final generation of computers that we want to make a total replacement system. But I am aware that we're using first generation. We're now up to fourth-generation computers.

So an interim system that could utilize a lot of the components that we've already got on line, in place in all the 20 air traffic control centers to get us by until we come up with that nebulous, that mythical-not mythical, but elusive-final system, I think maybe is good planning.

Mr. CARNEY. Wouldn't you agree that you never have a final system? By the time you design the system, build the system, and procure that system and put it on line, it's already going to be not the current state of the art. Am I correct?

Mr. WHITTAKER. You probably are a good deal more right than wrong, and this is exactly the thing that we have had thrown back at us time and again, whatever congressional committee is inquiring of the FAA-well, don't press us to do anything; we're still working on the final system. The technology is evolving.

Well, while that's all ongoing, the substantive evidence of the overutilization or the capacity of the current 9020, which is first generation, is becoming more and more alarming.

So though maybe we won't ever settle on a final system at whatever date, but certainly that as an excuse for continued procrastination to do anything to address the problems we've got with the current system, I'm not sure is really all that wise.

Mr. CARNEY. That's my concern. It's an excuse to procrastinate talking about the state of the art. Aren't we doing just that by going to an interim system? Aren't we doing a band-aid type of thing? Will that not encourage us to continue to do that? Would it be better off to take the 9020 and say, OK, you've got a couple more years. We're going to put a whole new system in from start to finish, boom, and go with what we have right now?

Mr. WHITTAKER. I have become a realist working with government. I'm not sure that we could force the new system on, literally, in the reference you want to address. And maybe the most practical, feasible, least expensive option we've got in the interim-and I say interim of 6 to 10 to 15 years—might be some sort of interim system.

I'm not sure, Bill, under the ideal conditions whether a brand new full replacement system wouldn't be the best idea. But I guess I'm enough of a realist to say I don't think that's going to happen. Certainly, I've seen not enough evidence from our previous work to suggest that they're going to take that much of a 180° turn.

Mr. CARNEY. Well, I think under the direction of the Congress, they might. I'm just concerned, not with the cast of characters as much as I am concerned with the state of the art. Are we at a point right now where we can go with a brandnew system and not mess around with an interim sytem? That's the question that I'm trying to get answered in my mind. If we think we can do it, perhaps we'd be better off because we'll be the ones who are procrastinating by putting in interim systems and band-aid approaches and continually hollering at the FAA.

[ocr errors]

Maybe if they'd just go and do it right now and make a determiion that they're going to go with a new system and get it on e as fast as possible, it would be a better solution.

Mr. WHITTAKER. Mr. Chairman, could I respond to that very efly?

Mr. GLICKMAN. Sure.

Mr. WHITTAKER. It has been our experience and it has been nforced by the seminars that my staff and I have attended that, Fortunately, would suggest that the FAA is not all that completesure of where they even want to go in the final system, which es rise to alarm, too. Even to the design stage, they haven't even -eed among themselves what degree of participation the controls are going to have versus the pilots versus the total automation. So if we're that far out of the starting gate, it really gives me cern to just let it drift continually in that direction.

Mr. CARNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Whittaker. We appreciate your tifying today and we'll be pleased to have your statement includin the record.

'd like to ask our FAA witnesses to come to the table now, all of em. And Bob, you are invited to sit up here, too.

Mr. WHITTAKER. Thank you very much.

Mr. GLICKMAN. We'll all ask questions of Mr. Helms, but after out an hour and a half delay, I'd like to get him up here as fast I can. I see that you're accompanied by Al Albrecht and Neal ake.

First of all, it's a pleasure to welcome you, Mr. Helms. I have d the opportunity of meeting with you and I'm impressed with ur background and qualifications. I hope that you can bring ne clarity to some of these issues which we are trying, as you e, in good faith to resolve to have the safest feasible air traffic ntrol system in the world.

I might add that while your statement is not lengthy, we have a of testimony here. It will all be included in the record. So I uld suggest we might want to summarize some of the testimony leave some time for questions. But I'll leave that to your discre

n.

So with that, you may commence.

The complete statements follow:]

ATEMENT OF HON. J. LYNN HELMS, ADMINISTRATOR, FED-
ERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY A. P.
ALBRECHT, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENGINEERING
AND DEVELOPMENT; NEAL A. BLAKE, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT;
AND GERALD THOMPSON, DIRECTOR, AIRWAY FACILITIES
SERVICE

Mr. HELMS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Is this the first time you've testified since you've en Administrator?

Mr. HELMS. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Well, you've had at least an interesting hour and half watching what's going on here. [Laughter.]

It's a pleasure to have you here and go ahead and commence.

Mr. HELMS. I thank you for your very kind remarks and I do look forward with sincerity and enthusiasm to working with this committee and the others. I also welcome the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee today to discuss our plans for achieving a more productive air traffic control system. As you have noted, I have with me today as witnesses Mr. Albert Albrecht, the Associate Administrator for Engineering and Development, Mr. Neal Blake, the Deputy Associate Administrator for Engineering and Development, and Mr. Gerald Thompson, Director of our Airway Facilities Service.

In direct support of the chairman's request, I will read my own statement and then hope that the questions from the subcommittee can, in fact, address themselves both to that and the other testimony submitted in advance in an effort to try to save you time. Today, I'd like to provide you with a brief overview of some of the actions I am taking to upgrade our ATC system. First, I have initiated an in-depth air space review to examine the performance of the ATC system and to identify any areas where changes could offer improvement in system operation. This review is being conducted by an advisory committee with members from the user community, and that's all elements of the user community. The activity will include reexamination of the needs of air carriers, commuters, the military and general aviation; also, a systematic review on a national level of the current air space structure and procedures; definition of system improvements to reduce user operating costs including fuel conservation procedures, an improved flow management system, more direct routing clearances, and modification of sector and center boundaries to facilitate traffic flows; examination of the number of facilities needed for air traffic control and the proper role for each facility; and the examination of longer range improvement options flowing out of the research and engineering program and described in the air traffic service year 2010 scenario, obviously, a major undertaking.

This activity has been established under the Federal Advisory Commission Act, and an executive task force reporting to Deputy Administrator Mike Fenello will direct this effort. I will review periodic reports personally. Our program schedule is ambitious and calls for development of a master plan covering system improvements by October 1, 1981.

My goal is to achieve implementation of all items covered by the plan within the 4 years thereafter. It becomes apparent, then, Mr. Chairman, that I'm laying it on the line myself. For better or worse, I'm committing myself to completing the plan and initiating all elements during my normal tour as Administrator.

I have also started a comprehensive review, individually, of the FAA's aircraft separation assurance program, the discrete address beacon system, the advanced ATC computer system, to which this committee is directly addressing itself, the flight service station. modernization effort, en route radar, national communications, aircraft certification, and automation programs, in addition to the applied research programs. My examination of these programs thus far has given me every indication that there will be significant payoffs in both cost reduction and growth capacity from revitaliz

C

C

d

th

in

de

ne

me

ves

Th

pla

to t

Con

sele

[ocr errors]

TC system, which includes development and implementaher levels of automation.

, there is every indication, but no commitment, that reof the 9020 computer system is necessary, both as a step hievement of the more productive system of the future place a system that may not be capable of supporting services by the late 1980's.

size, however, that no firm decision has been made yet. sent goal is to complete this review by late summer and research and development and facilities and equipment t plan defined as soon thereafter as possible. And obvi: would include a complete management plan.

is certainly desirable, as a part of this review, to examine atives and define what the next generation air traffic stem should be. I would, for example, like to examine feasibility of satellite systems that could provide communavigation, surveillance, and precision approach services increasing number of air space users.

hese systems offer some attractive potential benefits such it of some 950 VORTAC's, several hundred radars, severd instrument landing systems, and so forth, there are very substantial disadvantages, not the least of which is o the user community for the new avionics equipment, ne that concerns me the most, the impact of a potential ic failure or loss of satellite capability.

going to take a look at this to assess the feasibility of this stem for meeting our long-range requirements. If it is e will also address the question of how long it would take ent. If it is not feasible, if we find a reason why this type is just not in the ballpark of our future system and those ereto, we will define the limitations that must be met for ion in subsequent decisions. Such a finding would conthe present system approach which we're underway to s the best that human effort can produce. It truly bese where negative information becomes very valuable. It at we cannot do.

elieve that I need to defer definition of the en route replacement system until my evaluation of the entire velopment program mentioned earlier is completed. It is define computer size, architecture, and reliability until defined the systems that will lay demands on, and estabrements for, the new computer system. These, rather nation capability, should be the key criteria in evaluats elements of the possible future systems. Hence, I have rming up the future computer system definition until nd of this year.

acting my evaluation, I am also mindful of the recoms contained in the Senate Appropriations Committee ins staff report on the FAA's en route computer system. s engineering and development staff is continuing the ctivities needed both to prepare more detailed responses ate Appropriations Committee's recommendations and to e options analyses and cost/benefit studies needed to replacement approach.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »