Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, just announced that the Federal Aviation Administration will provide funding for the 149 contract Air Traffic Control Towers that were slated for closure as a result of the sequester will remain open at least through Fiscal Year 2013, which ends September 30, 2013.
More later.
The Federal Aviation Administration today, March 22, 2013, issued the list of the 149 contract towers it will close over a four week period beginning on April 7, 2013, as part of the FAA’s effort to deal with the effect of sequestration. The list of the contract towers (which can be viewed here) differs a little from the list first issued by the FAA. Upon review of the more than 1,000 letters, the FAA determined that 24 contract towers should remain open due to “national security reasons,” instead of closing as was previously planned. Finally, the FAA also determined that instead of closing 16 contract towers that participate in the “cost-share program” will instead remain open until September 30, 2013, which is the end of the FAA’s fiscal year.
The sequester requires that the FAA come up with $637 million in budget cuts. As part of the FAA’s efforts to make those cuts, the FAA proposed to close 189 contract towers. See Closing Air Traffic Control Towers As A Result of the Sequester Just the Latest Chapter of Ongoing Dilemma About Little Used Air Traffic Towers. This caused a firestorm of outrage from various aviation groups as well as Congress. In fact, the House Aviation Subcommittee turned a previously scheduled hearing on the FAA’s progress on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2012 into a hearing about the effect of the sequester on the FAA and the FAA’s decision to close air traffic control towers. See U.S. House’s Hearing On FAA Reform Act Turns Into Hearing On Sequester and Closing ATC Towers.
Due to the public and industry outcry, the FAA walked its position back following the hearing, stating that sponsors of the airports with towers slated for closure could request that their situation be reviewed. The FAA stated that it would only reconsider not closing control towers where it was in the “national interest.” This caused a flood of letters to the FAA, over a 1,000 by some estimates, stating how closing the airport’s air traffic control tower would be a major blow to national security. The most common complaints were that the airport was used for medical flights, to fight wildfires, used for law enforcement. However, the FAA reiterated its position that closing the air traffic control tower was NOT tantamount to closing the airport, and that it was only closing control towers at airport that were not heavily used. Based on the volume of responses it received, the FAA put off its decision on the towers it would be closing from Monday, March 18, 2013, until Friday, March 22, 2013.
In its final agency action issued today, the FAA whittled down the number from some 200 towers that were under consideration to 149, deciding to keep some contract towers open based on their significance to “national interest.” The FAA stated that it based its decision to keep towers open on several factors, whether the closure would
There is no word yet as to when the FAA will make its decision about closing the FAA-staffed Air Traffic Control Towers that were mentioned on the FAA’s February 22, 2013, list, (click here for a list of the FAA Staffed Air Traffic Control Towers that the FAA, on February 22, 2013, deemed “could be closed” on April 7, 2013) or when the FAA would institute the overnight closures of Air Traffic Control Towers at much larger airports.
On March 12, 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration announced that it has approved Boeing’s certification plan for a redesigned 787 battery system. The FAA stated in its press release that it had thoroughly reviewed Boeing’s proposed modifications and the company’s plan to demonstrate that the system will meet FAA requirements. This plan is just the first step in Boeing’s efforts to get the 787’s back in the air. The FAA will require Boeing to conduct extensive testing and analysis to demonstrate compliance with the applicable safety regulations and special conditions.
In the press release, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood emphasized that the FAA “won’t allow the plane to return to service unless we’re satisfied that the new design ensures the safety of the aircraft and its passengers.” As part of the certification process, the FAA agreed to limited test flights for two aircraft with the new containment system installed in order to validate the aircraft instrumentation for the battery and battery enclosure testing.
FAA concluded that although the certification plan has been approved, the FAA’s January 16, 2013 airworthiness directive, which required operators to cease 787 operations, is still in effect. Although there is a now a plan in place for certification of the battery redesign, the FAA stated that it is continuing its comprehensive review of the 787 design, production and manufacturing process.
While Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Michael Huerta sat in the witness chair on February 27, 2013, sitting on his desk was a new Audit Report from the Office of Inspector General concluding that FAA’s efforts to track and mitigate air traffic losses of separation are limited by data collection and implementation challenges.
(UPDATE March, 22, 2013: See FAA Issues List of Towers to Close Due To Sequester for the list of Air Traffic Control Towers that the FAA has slated to close).
Over the past few years, the FAA has reported that there has been an increase in reported air-traffic control mistakes. The FAA has claimed that the 53% increase from 2009 to 2010 in planes getting too close together is a result of its institution of an automated program, called Traffic Analysis and Review Program, and a voluntary, non-punitive program in which controllers can self-report safety instances and concerns called Air Traffic Safety Action Program. The Inspector General, however, found that those programs cannot account for all of the increase, since other automated programs that had been in place during those years reported a 39% increase in operational errors.
In fairness to the FAA, the Report did mention that almost one-quarter of the increase is due to the revocation of a separation waiver at the Southern California Terminal Radar Approach Control that led to the reclassification of many routine approach and landings as “operational errors.” The waiver allowed aircraft landing simultaneously to be closer than normally allowed. However, Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service revoked the waiver because it considered it unsafe, and subsequently, reclassified air craft landings that occurred under the waiver as operational errors.
The Inspector General concluded that the FAA’s “new policies and procedures for collecting, investigating, and reporting separation losses have the potential to reduce losses and improve reporting, but their effectiveness is limited by incomplete data and implementation challenges.” One of the primary challenges, according to the Inspector General, is the fact that FAA’s training for controllers and managers on the new policies and procedures has been limited, and the fact many managers of FAA air traffic facilities believed that they do not have enough staff or knowledge of local flight procedures and airspace to effectively investigate operational errors.
This is where the budget cuts due to the sequester come in. The spending cuts, along with required furloughs of FAA employees, including air traffic controllers, could hurt the incremental progress that the FAA is currently making. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association said on Monday, March 5, 2013, after the Audit Report was released to the public, that the budget cuts “may stymie the efforts of air traffic controllers and the FAA to move safety reporting systems forward with updated technologies and procedures.”
With a hiring freeze in effect, the FAA’s plans to augment its current staff of 16 to investigate the “high number” of mistakes, will not happen this fiscal year. Yet, Clayton Foushee, Director of the FAA’s Office of Audit and Evaluation, remained optimistic in the FAA’s reply to the audit. He said that the FAA has completed the most significant improvements in control safety in 30 years, including the program for voluntary reporting of incidents and electronic detection and that more initiatives are planned for later this year.
On February 27, 2013, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure’s Subcommittee on Aviation held a hearing entitled “Implementation of the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act: One Year Later. Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ), as was apparent by the memo he sent out regarding the hearing, set up the hearing long before the Federal Aviation Administration came out with its proposed budget cuts for the sequester. However, the week before the hearing, the FAA issued its proposed cuts to its budget to meet the demands of the sequester. See Closing Air Traffic Control Towers As A Result of the Sequester Just the Latest Chapter of Ongoing Dilemma About Little Used Air Traffic Towers. Because of that, there were very few questions about the FAA Reform Act and many questions about the FAA’s proposed cuts.
(UPDATE March, 22, 2013: See FAA Issues List of Towers to Close Due To Sequester for the list of Air Traffic Control Towers that the FAA has slated to close).
Subcommittee Chairman LoBiondo’s opening comments acknowledged this fact, stating that although designed to talk about progress on the FAA Reform Act, most of the time will be devoted to the sequestration cuts. This attitude was echoed by Ranking Member Rick Larsen (D-MN) as well as the full Committee Chair Bill Shuster (R-PA). Full Committee Ranking Member Nick Rahall (D-WV) took a slightly different tack and wanted to know how the sequester would impact the aviation programs that affect rural America such as Essential Air Service and Air Ambulance.
FAA Administrator Michael Huerta – the only witness – told the Subcommittee that the FAA is working diligently to bring the FAA Reform Act to fruition, but the sequester is a potentially big bump in the road. He then laid out how the sequester is different than the shut down of the FAA in 2011 when “essential” personnel were allowed to keep working. First, Administrator Huerta said that all of FAA’s accounts were affected, thus all employees in all business lines were affected. Second, even essential personnel are affected, because the sequester requires that cuts come proportionally from all of the FAA’s accounts.
Part of the problem, Administrator Huerta continued, was that a large portion of the Department of Transportation’s budget is exempt from sequester. Thus, the FAA is burdened with taking on about 60% of Transportation’s portion of the sequester. Moreover, within the FAA’s budget, the airport grant program (AIP) is exempt from the sequester thereby further limiting where the cuts can be made.
Despite the focus on the sequester, Administrator Huerta did mention a couple of items related to the implementation of the FAA Reform Act and other aviation topics:
In conclusion, Administrator Huerta wanted to remind the Subcommittee that aviation is the U.S.’s largest export industry, representing $1.3 trillion in trade and 10,000,000 jobs.
Most of the questions focused on how the FAA came up with the list of tower closures and reduced hours. Administrator Huerta said that the method was developed to create the least impact on the largest number of travelers. However, unique characteristics of the each of the towers was considered so that the impact of the closure would be lessened. Administrator Huerta reminded the Subcommittee several times that if the FAA were take a tower off of the closure there would have be a cut somewhere else. In response to Rep. Daniel Lipinski’s (D-IL) question Administrator Huerta indicated that all of the actions that the FAA would be taking would compromise efficiency in the NAS.
Many of the Subcommittee wanted to know why more consultants were not cut, instead of furloughing employees, which would have a dire effect on the efficiency of the National Air System. Administrator Huerta said that consultant contracts were cut, but each line of business had to be cut proportionally. The Republicans tend to feel that the cuts could be made through better financial management. Rep. Shuster stated that he believes that the FAA has the flexibility to move money around so that furloughs could be avoided. Administrator Huerta replied that the sequester limited the FAA’s flexibility, and to the extent that he can, he, too, wants to limit furloughs.
However, one the session’s most interesting question was from Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) when he asked whether any of the cuts that are attributable to the sequester process should be made regardless of the sequestration. This relates to an underlying feeling that the FAA has been trying to close ATC towers at airports that it believes to be underutilized. The sequester, some believe, provides cover for closing towers without having to justify it politically. Administrator Huerta did not answer Rep. Capuano’s question directly. Instead, he danced around it by stating that the cuts may compromise efficiency but the FAA is willing to do that in order to maintain a safe system. Whether it would be a good idea to close some of the towers on the list, regardless of the sequester was left for another day. Rep. Capuano let the Administrator’s answer stand by stating that what the FAA Administrator is saying is “the sequester as the FAA will be implementing it is basically a stupid idea.” Which, in the end, no one disagreed with.
UPDATE March 15, 2013:
From sources, it now appears that the FAA has sent letters to the airports that have towers slated for closure stating that the FAA would announce its final selection of airport slated for “elimination of funding for the tower operations” on Friday, March, 22, 2013, instead of Monday, March 18, 2013.
J. David Grizzle, Chief Operating Officer of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Traffic Organization, appears to have issued this release on Friday, March 15, 2013 to the affected airports:
As you are aware, the FAA has offered to airport sponsors for 189 airports within the FAA’s contract tower program the opportunity to explain why the elimination of funding for the tower operations at their airports would adversely affect the national interest.
The FAA has received a very large number of responses. In order to review comprehensively the submission on behalf of each airport, the FAA will delay the date of its final decision and announcement of which airport tower operations it intends to cease to fund.
Written Statements:
On February 22, 2013, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Michael Huerta issued a two-page letter stating that in preparation for the budget sequestration the FAA “is making plans to reduce its expenditures by approximately $600 million for the remainder of FY 2013.” Although the letter did not commit the FAA or USDOT to make any changes, the letter did state that it was considering the following changes “that will have an impact on FY 2013 operations:
1. Furlough the vast majority of the FAA’s 47,000 employees (including all management and non-management employees working within the Air Traffic Organization) for approximately one day per pay period until the end of the fiscal year in September, with a maximum of two days per pay period.
2. Eliminate midnight shifts in over 60 towers across the country.
4. Reduce preventative maintenance and equipment provisioning and support for all NAS equipment.
(UPDATE March, 22, 2013: See FAA Issues List of Towers to Close Due To Sequester for the list of Air Traffic Control Towers that the FAA has slated to close).
Whether this was meant to be a “political gambit” or is a bona fide plan for dealing with the impact of the sequester, it got the attention of the media and the aviation pundits. The aviation forums in LinkedIn buzzed over the weekend over an article published in The Guardian, while a whole host of articles appeared in local papers about the various closures and the possible impact it would have on the local economy. Secretary LaHood went on the Sunday talk shows urging Congress to compromise on the sequester and the “across the board budget cuts” so that this plan can be avoided.
Reaction to the Transportation budget cuts has been swift and negative. Politco has reported:
Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller called the sequester cuts “reckless” and said that “everyone who travels for business or pleasure will be adversely affected.” NATCA President Paul Rinaldi cautioned that the cuts “may not be reversed,” adding that “closing air traffic control towers means the system will be even more compromised than anticipated.” Regional Airline Association President Roger Cohen said the “government is playing an irresponsible game of chicken – with no winners – and the traveling and shipping public will be the losers.” ACI-NA President Greg Principato thinks “decisions on cutting air traffic control services should be made based on most efficiently serving the needs and safety of the traveling public and in consultation with airports, airlines as well as affected communities.” A4A’s Jean Medina said that “no one wants to see the sequester happen,” and AOPA President and CEO Craig Fuller said he’s “deeply concerned” that the cuts “will compromise aviation safety and severely damage the efficiency of general aviation flight operations nationally.”
But how much of a “compromise of safety” will it actually be? Bloomberg news reported last year that 54 of the 72 towers slated for overnight closures already met FAA guidelines for closing during those periods because of low traffic, according to agency data compiled by Bloomberg. The FAA has been thwarted in previous attempts to close towers and radar rooms at little-used airports by pressure from members of Congress. A good example if Ann Arbor Municipal Airport. Ann Arbor Municipal Airport had, according to AirNav.com approximately 58,765 operations for the period ending December 31, 2011. In FY 2011, the FAA paid $1,783,838 and in Fiscal Year 2012 (Oct. 2011 – Sept. 2012) the FAA paid $1,860,791 to operate the Air Traffic Control Tower. Thus, it cost approximately, $31/operation to operate the control tower, which includes the operations that occurred after the control tower closed for the night. Aside from the control tower, the entire budget for operation of Ann Arbor Municipal Airport was $817,900 – approximately $1,000,000 less than the cost just to operate the tower.
The fear in the aviation community is that if these cuts are instituted, then they will not be reversed and many smaller airports will face financial difficulties or closure in the years to come. This comes at a time when there appears to be an ongoing debate about the FAA’s Air Traffic Control mission. Should it be privatized? Should it be split off from FAA’s regulatory duties into a separate agency? As reported in Has The Time Come to Privatize Air Traffic Control? The USDOT Inspector General found that the FAA’s Contract Tower program offered little difference in the safety or quality of services provided by similar FAA and contract towers.” The Inspector General also found that the “contract towers provided air traffic services to low-activity airports at lower costs than the Agency could otherwise provide.” Thus, whether the tower is privatized or contract, the true cost of the tower would be passed onto the consumer, rather than shouldered by the federal government. This is certainly what the Republican majority on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee wanted last summer. It may be that they will get what they want sooner than they thought.
UPDATE February 26, 2013:
Politico is reporting that Rep. Bill Shuster, Chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Sen. John John Thune, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, sent a letter yesterday to Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood indicating their desire to get their hands on the FAA’s spend plan, both with and without the sequestration. Rep. Shuster and Sen. Thune claim that this information should have been produced by the agency back in October, 2012.
UPDATE February 27, 2013:
For more information about the U.S. House Aviation Subcommittee Hearing that, although it was ostensibly held to update the House on progress with the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act, devolved into a hearing about the FAA’s sequester cuts, see U.S. House’s Hearing On FAA Reform Act Turns Into Hearing On Sequester and Closing ATC Towers
UPDATE March 15, 2013:
From sources, it now appears that the FAA has sent letters to the airports that have towers slated for closure stating that the FAA would announce its final selection of airport slated for “elimination of funding for the tower operations” on Friday, March, 22, 2013, instead of Monday, March 18, 2013.
J. David Grizzle, Chief Operating Officer of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Air Traffic Organization, appears to have issued this release on Friday, March 15, 2013 to the affected airports:
As you are aware, the FAA has offered to airport sponsors for 189 airports within the FAA’s contract tower program the opportunity to explain why the elimination of funding for the tower operations at their airports would adversely affect the national interest.
The FAA has received a very large number of responses. In order to review comprehensively the submission on behalf of each airport, the FAA will delay the date of its final decision and announcement of which airport tower operations it intends to cease to fund.
The FAA will make that announcement on March 22, 2013.
Examples of local articles:
When the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 was signed into law on February 14, 2012, it included provisions intended to advance the “Next Generation Air Transportation System” or “NextGen” as it has been called for several years now. One of the primary purposes of NextGen is to transform the management of the nations’ air traffic from a ground-based radar system to one that is satellite-based for improved safety, capacity and efficiency. Because of the importance that Congress and the FAA have put on NextGen, it should come as no surprise that on the anniversary of the passage of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act that the USDOT Inspector General’s office announced that it was responding to Congress’ request to review FAA’s progress in meeting the NextGen provisions of the Act and has begun an audit that will (1) assess FAA’s progress and (2) identify challenges preventing FAA from the provisions of the Act. This is ahead of the House Aviation Subcommittee’s hearing on February 27, 2013, at 10:30a entitled Implementation of the FAA Reauthorization and Reform Act: One Year Later.
However, it is interesting to note that this is nowhere near the first time in the past year that the USDOT Inspector General has looked into the FAA’s progress with NextGen. In fact, one year after the Act, the DOT Inspector General has five open audits concerning issues with the implementation of NextGen generally or particular components of NextGen. Also, within the past year, the Inspector General issued three reports and testified before Congress once. Each time, the Inspector General indicated that it had found the FAA’s implementation of NextGen to be wanting.
Since reauthorization of the FAA had been delayed for several years prior to the enactment of the Act, it could have been expected that the FAA would have been able to move quickly once the Act was passed, particularly with the long awaited NextGen programs. But, a little over a month after the passage of the Act (April 23, 2012), the USDOT Inspector General issued a report entitled Status of Transformational Programs and Risks to Achieving NextGen Goals. The Inspector General found that
FAA has not yet established total program costs, schedules, or performance baselines for any of the six NextGen transformational programs [i.e., Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, System Wide Information Management, Data Communications, NextGen Network Enabled Weather, NAS Voice System, and Collaborative Air Traffic Management Technologies], which limits visibility into the total costs and timelines required to achieve benefits. In addition, FAA’s progress in implementing the programs has been limited by a lack of finalized program requirements. Other risks to effectively implementing these programs include the lack of an integrated master schedule—a key planning tool to manage the programs’ interdependencies—as well as integration issues with complex automation systems. The FAA concurred with three of our four recommendations and partially concurred with one.
The fact that the FAA concurred on three recommendation should indicate that those recommendations should be moving forward. Yet, the Inspector General found it necessary to audit some of the key components of NextGen, announcing on May 9, 2012, that it was auditing the FAA’s efforts to streamline its processess for implementing new performance-based flight procedures, which, the Inspector General noted “are key building blocks for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.” A few days later (May 14, 2012), the Inspector General announced that it was auditing the FAA’s Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) program, which is a “cornerstone of efforts to modernize air traffic control from its present state into the Next Generation Air Transportation System.” This audit was undertaken because various House Committees thought that the FAA was not moving fast enough with NextGen implementation.
Next, on July 19, 2012, the Inspector General announced that it was undertaking another audit of “underlying causes for FAA’s limited NextGen progress.” That announcement indicated that the Inspector General was acting at the behest of the House transportation Committee and Aviation Subcommittee and that its audit objective would be to
(1) assess FAA’s progress with meeting key milestones for achieving NextGen capabilities, (2) examine possible underlying causes for FAA’s limited progress with advancing NextGen overall, and (3) review FAA’s recent reorganization and other efforts to improve the management and execution of NextGen initiatives.
Many of these issues were raised at the September 12, 2012, hearing of the House Committee on transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation regarding the FAA’s progress and challenges in advancing NextGen. The Inspector General testified that that he saw three key challenges that “continue to impact FAA’s ability to realize NextGen’s benefits: “(1) implementing NextGen capabilities at congested airports; (2) resolving technical and program management problems with the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) program; and (3) managing program costs and schedules in developing and implementing NextGen’s transformational programs.” See also Bringing NextGen Online Is Moving Slowly Say Department of Transportation Inspector General and GAO at House Subcommittee Hearing (September 13, 2012).
Then, a day later on September 13, 2012, the Inspector General issued a report on the FAA’s progress and problems with the “En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) program that “will provide the foundation for NextGen.” ERAM is a key NextGen enabling program for controlling high-altitude flights. It replaces a 40-year old computer hardware and software system, plus a backup, and more than 800 computer display workstations at 20 of FAA’s Air Route Traffic Control Centers. In that Audit Report, the Inspector General found that:
FAA has experienced extensive software problems with ERAM that have delayed the effort by almost 4 years, with cost increases that could reach in excess of $500 million. FAA’s problems with ERAM are attributable to fundamental program management weaknesses as well as weaknesses in its contract—a contract that wasnot structured or administered to effectively manage costs and achieve desired outcomes. Ultimately, ERAM’s delays pose significant risks to other critical NextGen initiatives. ERAM is on much stronger footing now than when we began our review, mostly due to sustained management attention by FAA leadership as well as focused risk management and close work with controllers. However, while FAA has made strides towards improving its program and contract management for ERAM, considerable risk still lies ahead as FAA implements ERAM at some of the Nation’s busiest facilities.
Although the FAA concurred on 12 of the Inspector General’s 13 recommendations, the Inspector General issued a self-initiated follow-up report on December 19, 2012, indicating that the FAA has not adequately implemented the security requirements for ERAM.
With the new year, the Inspector General opened another audit covering NextGen and the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012. This time the audit is required by the Act: the Inspector General must audit the FAA’s ADS-B information security controls, with the objective to evaluate how security issues are being addressed in the overall design and implementation of the ADS-B system (which is also currently the subject of an Inspector General’s audit).
Thus, as of February 18, 2013, there are several open audits, (at least it would seem so from the information available to the public on the OIG’s website) in the Inspector General’s office concerning NextGen and the FAA’s failure to timely and properly implement the provisions of the Act.
In addition, over the past year the Inspector General has issued several reports regarding the FAA’s implementation of the Act in general, and NextGen in particular, and found the FAA’s efforts wanting.
