[Senate Hearing 109-530]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-530
ALASKA AVIATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND
FUNDING CHALLENGES--MEETING FUTURE
SAFETY, CAPITAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL NEEDS
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 5, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-336 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
__________________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 5, 2006..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Witnesses
Blakey, Hon. Marion C., Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration................................................. 2
Prepared statement........................................... 5
George, Tom, Alaska Regional Representative, Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association............................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Hajdukovich, Bob, Chief Operating Officer, Frontier Flying
Service........................................................ 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Plumb, Jr., Morton V., Director, Ted Stevens International
Airport........................................................ 20
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Torgerson, John, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities........................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
ALASKA AVIATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND FUNDING CHALLENGES--MEETING FUTURE
SAFETY, CAPITAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL NEEDS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 5, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Anchorage, AK.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in
Assembly Chambers, Loussac Library, Hon. Ted Stevens, Chairman
of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. This is another hearing of the Commerce
Committee in the field. Today we're going to hear from the
Administrator, Marion Blakey, and she's joined by Pat Poe who
is our Regional Administrator. Pat, you're leaving us soon, I
understand. You've been here, what 8 years now?
Mr. Poe. Just about, it's gone very, very quickly.
The Chairman. Well, we thank you very much for the time
you've spent working on these aviation safety matters along
with all of us and it's been a great change here under your
administration of the Regional Office. We have been focused on
our committee on communications policy but we're going to get
back to the aviation areas later this year I hope. We've got a
lot to discuss. We all know that Alaska depends on aviation
more than any other state and we have had a terrible history in
aviation safety. A few years ago when we started the Capstone
program, and Ms. Blakey will testify about it today, we had
serious concerns about the future of safety with so many pilots
having accidents and so many deaths in our state. Innovation
has come about which is driven by necessity and I'm really
pleased that the FAA and the state and the various interests in
Alaska joined together sometime early in the 1990s. Capstone
remains a model for the government and for industry. In the
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta alone, since Capstone has been
introduced, the accident rate has been reduced by about 60
percent. I don't want to steal your statement, Ms. Blakey, but
I'm very proud of what has been done here. This afternoon we'll
meet with the people involved with the Medallion Program. That,
too, has been a voluntary program of our operators. We have a
recent history of success and we want to hear from Ms. Blakey
and others on the second panel on what we can do to improve on
even that. So, Pat, we do wish you the best as you go on to
whatever you're going to do as you leave this office. Ms.
Blakey, the Administrator has been here several times now and
has participated in not only the Capstone review but also the
Medallion Program and we're grateful to you for the time you've
spent on Alaska safety matters. I'm pleased to have your
statements this morning.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARION C. BLAKEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Blakey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to tell you, it
is wonderful to be back in Alaska. This is one of those things
that's been a great privilege of the job I have. And I must
tell you that when I was here----
The Chairman. Can you pull that mike up toward you please?
Ms. Blakey. Yes, I can. Is this the one that's live here?
This----
The Chairman. Wrong mike.
Ms. Blakey. Does that work better?
The Chairman. Fine, thank you.
Ms. Blakey. Great. I was here a year ago and I had the
opportunity to speak with people about the aviation needs of
this great state and to work with you, Mr. Chairman, on some of
the most important initiatives that we have in the state, ones
that are bellwethers for so much of the rest of the country. I
thought to myself, how important it is that, relatively new
safety initiatives are making a tremendous difference in the
lives of people in the State of Alaska who depend so much on
flying. It's clear that, thanks to the continued interest and
support from you and with the help of the Alaskan aviation
community, which is very vocal and so active, air safety in
this state continues to improve. I should also tell you that,
as you know, the State of Alaska and your leadership here has
had tremendous support from Secretary Norman Mineta, who last
year was here with us working together on a number of these
initiatives. As you know, this is his last week in office as
Secretary of Transportation. And so he is in Washington
attending to a number of things, wrapping up his tremendous
tenure there, one that I think is going to be seen as historic.
But he would have loved to have been here as well.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not also say in
referring to those who are retiring that we have done
everything we knew to talk Pat Poe out of this idea of
retirement. I think it's intrinsically a bad thing and I told
him it may not be good for his health. But I cannot seem to
persuade him off this idea. So, we are very grateful. And I'm
looking forward to this trip, to taking advantage of as much of
Pat's knowledge base as I can to absorb while I'm here. Because
we really are going to miss his help in the state.
Although I emphasized it last year, it bears repeating that
aviation safety is the critical mission of the FAA. Likewise,
enhancing safety in Alaska remains an essential part of our
flight plan which as you know is our business plan that governs
the priorities of how we spend our resources in the FAA. Most
Americans don't have to worry about getting in a plane to get
medical attention or simply basic supplies; Alaskans do. But
the goods news is that Alaska doesn't take aviation safety for
granted and we can all be proud of what we've achieved in terms
of accident reduction. You referred to this in your statement,
Mr. Chairman, and you are absolutely right. We've seen a 40 to
50 percent accident reduction in some parts of the state. It's
really extraordinary. And we can be prouder still that we've
not been content to rest on those accomplishments. So, if
you'll permit me I'd like to simply update you on a few of the
initiatives that you know well but that I know some in this
hearing room today would like to hear more of the specifics.
Alaska Capstone is a technology driven safety program. The
key enabling technology on which Capstone is based is Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast, more commonly called ADS-B.
Capstone equipped aircraft using ADS-B have held a consistently
lower accident rate than non-equipped aircraft. Consequently, a
major goal of Capstone is to pursue affordable avionics and
encourage equipage so that aircraft owners will have a range of
choices appropriate to their operational needs.
Without a doubt, ADS-B is the future of air traffic
control, of this we're convinced. In the near term, pilots
operating aircraft equipped with ADS-B have much better
situational awareness than other pilots. They know where their
own aircraft are with greater accuracy and the displays show
them all the aircraft in the air around them. In addition to
increasing capacity, ADS-B improves aviation safety both in the
air and on the ground. On the ground it is of tremendous
importance because of the liability of runway incursions.
Capstone, which began installing equipment in aircraft in July
2000 in the Y-K Delta Region, has served as a critical test bed
for this important technology. In other words, what you're
doing here is shaping the future of the Nation's air
transportation system.
In May, I established a national ADS-B program office in
the FAA to facilitate the integration of ADS-B into the
National Airspace System. The national program is building on
the successes of Capstone, Senator, and I want to give credit
where credit is due. You and the people of Alaska have been the
drivers of this technology. In the years I've been at the
agency over and over again, Alaska is making it happen for the
rest of the country.
Another joint industry/FAA effort that continues to improve
aviation safety in Alaska is the Medallion Shield Program, an
effort implemented by the Medallion Foundation. The program
sets voluntary safety standards for air carriers in Alaska that
are above and beyond FAA requirements. The Medallion Shield
Program has expanded from 10 carriers in August of 2002 to 75
today, which is tremendous. Of those, 27 have at least one
star, meaning they've established a safety program that meets
certain requirements. And three have received their shield,
meaning they've earned all five stars by meeting specific
training, operational, auditing and risk management goals. The
State of Alaska now requires bidders for any type of state
contract involving air carriage to contract with carriers that
have at least one star in the program, which has yielded great
results. Since September 2004, there have been no fatalities
involving Part 135 air operators in the State of Alaska. It's a
record we certainly hope to continue.
Medallion Flyer Program is the general aviation counterpart
of the Medallion Shield. And I will point out that today I am
very proudly wearing my Medallion flyer wings. I was very proud
at the beginning of this program to be presented with these
because it's impressive; it's a voluntary program that targets
all Part 91 operators. The program focuses on the adoption and
implementation of personal safety and risk management programs
by Alaska's general aviation pilots. More than 1,000 pilots
have voluntarily participated in the program and more than 500
have completed their additional Medallion training. Again,
let's look at the bottom line. There have been no fatalities
involving any Medallion pilot who completed the initial
training. It's a real success. And the FAA is proud to continue
working to keep this going.
The last thing I'd like to talk about is something I know
is of great concern to you, Senator, and that is the
President's 2007 budget, and our request particularly for the
AIP Program, Airport Improvement Program. You spoke with great
eloquence and passion the last time I appeared before your
Committee, so I'd like to take the time to address the concerns
you outlined then and take them on head-on because this is a
difficult budget time for all of us.
Of course, given how uniquely situated you are in terms of
understanding the current budget climate in Washington, I know
it's somewhat superfluous to explain to you that, like other
government agencies, the FAA has been having to make some very
tough choices and take a look at our programs with an eye to
what really does require priority funding at this moment in
time. At the same time, I want you to know that after the last
hearing, I've gone back and carefully reviewed our budget
request. And I want to emphasize that Alaska's airport needs
will continue to be met. As I said at the outset of my
statement, I fully appreciate the importance of aviation to the
State of Alaska. It is unique. That's why, although Alaska
would see a reduction in AIP funding under our budget request,
it would rank second in the Nation in the amount of entitlement
funds. That is up from last year. Last year it was third in the
nation, in 2006. Surely this says something about the FAA's
commitment to this important state. Rural access programs in
Alaska are specifically included in the FAA's overall flight
plan. FAA's commitment to funding such projects is evidenced by
our recent investments, including $23 million this fiscal year
to improve remote access airports. Our current flight plan
continues this initiative through Fiscal Year 2011. We will
continue to give high priority to funding rural access projects
in the state.
Finally, I'd like to note that while our commitment to
Alaska's rural communities is very firm, at the same time we're
supporting major airports like Ted Stevens International
Airport here in Anchorage. Ted Stevens International Airport
has received $14.2 million in discretionary funds to support
their Letter of Intent projects and noise program. LOI's also
have the highest priority for our discretionary funds and would
be fully funded in Fiscal Year 2007 under the President's
budget. Also noise-related projects are funded through a
dedicated pool of discretionary funds. We anticipate that
Alaska's noise projects will also be funded under our Fiscal
Year 2007 proposal.
Obviously, there are numerous programs and projects going
on in Alaska that I haven't touched on. Alaskans have a lot of
energy when it comes to aviation which, as someone who loves
aviation, is why it's so terrific being up here. And I learn a
lot every single time I come about new priorities and programs
that are really advancing the bounds of safety. I just want to
end by saying that I appreciate the people of Alaska, the
uniqueness of Alaska and the special working relationship that
exists between the FAA, your leadership and the aviation
community. We can take pride that our work here will ultimately
benefit the entire country.
As I close, Senator, please take a look at the kiosk that
stands before us right here. It's another terrific step for
technology and of course it's another first step that's being
taken in the State of Alaska. The weather camera program has
been very successful. There are 63 weather cameras located
throughout the state. These kiosks will allow pilots at remote
airports throughout the state to see weather along the route
once they've reached the airport. Because after all, things can
change a lot from when they checked on their home computer
usually early in the morning. But they can check at the airport
right before that critical go, no-go decision is being made.
Sir, we're proposing 35 kiosk locations. Lake Hood will be
the first. And given Alaska's track record for pushing the
envelope on aviation safety, taking us where we haven't gone
before, I'm confident that this one is going to be one of many
that will be effective throughout the state. So thank you very
much for allowing me to testify here today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blakey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marion C. Blakey, Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration
Good morning Senator Stevens and Members of the Committee. It is
wonderful to be back in the great State of Alaska. I was here a year
ago and had a wonderful time. At that time, I had the opportunity to
speak with many interesting people about the aviation needs of Alaska
and see for myself how the important safety initiatives we are working
on with the aviation community here are making a real difference in the
lives of the people who depend so much on flying for the basic needs of
everyday life. So I am happy to be back and see what has happened in
the past year and to reacquaint myself with some of the folks I talked
with last year. I very much appreciate that, thanks to the continued
interest and support of Senator Stevens and the help of the Alaska
aviation community, aviation safety in the state continues to improve.
The experience and expertise gained through the initiatives we are
working on here will eventually improve safety throughout the country.
Although I emphasized it last year, it bears repeating that
aviation safety is the critical mission of the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and enhancing safety in Alaska remains an
essential part of our Flight Plan. Most Americans don't have to worry
about getting in a plane to get medical attention or basic supplies;
Alaskans do. While flying is taken for granted in Alaska, safety isn't,
as has been evidenced by the admirable work that has gone into reducing
the number of accidents in certain parts of the state by 40 to 50
percent in the past decade. We can all be proud of what we have done to
achieve this accident reduction and we can be prouder still that we are
not content to rest on our accomplishments and are working to make
things ever safer. So I would like to update you on a couple of the
initiatives I talked to you about last year to let you know where we
are and where we are going.
The Alaska Capstone Program, a technology-driven safety program,
continues to achieve near term safety and efficiency gains in aviation
by accelerating implementation and use of modern technology, in both
avionics and ground systems. The key enabling technology on which
Capstone is based is Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-
B). ADS-B gives an aircraft with the requisite data uplink/downlink and
cockpit display capabilities the same information about other aircraft
in the vicinity as air traffic control now receives. Capstone equipped
aircraft using ADS-B have had a consistently lower accident rate than
non-equipped aircraft. Consequently, a major goal of Capstone is to
continue to pursue affordable avionics so that aircraft owners will
have a range of choices appropriate to their operational needs. This
includes both creating options for equipage and a strategy to ensure
that all aircraft in Alaska are equipped. I won't go into all of the
details I did in my statement last year on this important program, but
I would like to focus on how Capstone has helped us get to the point
where we can move forward with ADS-B.
ADS-B is, quite simply, the future of air traffic control. Instead
of using radar data to keep aircraft at safe distances from one
another, in the future, signals from Global Positioning Satellites will
provide air traffic controllers and pilots with much more accurate
information that will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky
and on runways. Pilots operating equipped aircraft have much better
situational awareness because they know where their own aircraft are
with greater accuracy, and their displays will show them all the
aircraft in the air around them. ADS-B will improve aviation safety in
the air and on the ground, as well as increase capacity. Capstone,
which began installing equipment in aircraft in July 2000 in the Yukon-
Kuskokwim (Y-K) Delta Region, has served as a critical test bed for
this important technology.
In May, I established a national ADS-B program office in FAA to
facilitate and oversee the integration of ADS-B into the National
Airspace System (NAS). The national program will build on the successes
of Capstone. The information and experience we have gained here in
Alaska will help FAA accelerate the integration efforts throughout
Alaska, which is critical to the success of the Next Generation of Air
Traffic Services (NGATS). So the importance of the role played by the
people here in Alaska cannot be overstated. I want to thank the entire
Alaskan aviation community, in partnership with the Capstone Program
Office, for its leadership in the development of far-reaching and
innovative changes that will continue to have a positive impact on the
NAS.
I do want to acknowledge one problem we faced regarding ADS-B in
Alaska. Earlier this year, it was determined that an unapproved
separation standard was being applied by the Anchorage Center (ZAN)
between ADS-B surveilled aircraft and radar surveilled aircraft. As a
result of this determination, FAA executives, including the Associate
Administrator for Aviation Safety and the Alaska Regional
Administrator, decided to suspend the display of ADS-B targets on ZAN
controller displays. I believe this action was necessary and
appropriate pending an assessment of the operational use of ADS-B in
this area.
Unfortunately, there were unintended consequences with the operator
fleet monitoring (OFM) and the display of traffic information in the
control tower at Bethel. Upon learning this, we took corrective action
to reinstate the capability of OFM and display of traffic information
in the Bethel tower, both of which are now restored. The ADS-B
capabilities of Flight Information Services--Broadcast (FIS-B), Air-to-
Air situational awareness, and Search and Rescue (SAR) have been and
will continue to be provided without disruption. Anchorage Center
continues to provide instrument flight rules (IFR) separation services
in the Bethel area through procedural methods.
FAA is committed to resolving the remaining issues associated with
safely separating ADS-B targets from radar targets (known as a mixed
environment). The use of ADS-B information as a fully integrated air
traffic control surveillance source requires an approved operational
evaluation with appropriate controls to ensure compliance with safety
standards. FAA has in place an aggressive schedule to achieve such
compliance. On July 15, the FAA will begin an operational validation to
evaluate minimum separation standards in a mixed environment in the
Bethel, Aniak, and St. Mary's areas. On or about August 15, the FAA
plans to expand the operational validation of the mixed environment to
the Dillingham and Kang Salmon areas.
Another joint industry/FAA effort that continues to improve
aviation safety in Alaska is the Medallion Shield Program, a program
implemented by the Medallion Foundation. The program sets voluntary
safety standards for air carriers in Alaska that are above and beyond
FAA requirements. The program focuses on establishing and sustaining an
elevated level of safety performance through: the development of a
safety culture that holds safety as a core value; continuous
professional development of individual skills and competence; proactive
sharing of operational control responsibilities; hazard identification
and risk management; and management practices that support the
organization's safety objectives.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the program, the Five
Stars in the Medallion Five Star Shield program include numerous
methods for improving safety. To earn the First Star, each air carrier
must establish a safety program which, at a minimum, should include
safety meetings and audits, the use of root-cause analysis, hazard
identification, incident investigations, and a viable emergency
response plan. The Five Star program also requires a classroom training
program for pilots, mechanics and ground service personnel, as well as
required training on a PC-based computer simulator. Two annual check
rides are required to receive this Second Star, and annual pilot
proficiency check rides are required to keep the Star. The Third Star
involves operational risk management. A dynamic system that provides
analytical tools as well as a system of checks and balances to
proactively identify hazards and manage risks is required. The carrier
must have an operational risk management system that quantifies the
risks for each flight, including weather, airport, and crew readiness.
The total risk score determines if the flight is conducted normally, if
more management evaluation is required for release of the flight, or if
the flight is cancelled. The Fourth Star concerns maintenance and
ground service operations, requiring specific training and manning
levels. The Fifth Star is an internal audit program, which requires
incorporation of a proactive internal audit system that focuses on the
use of systems safety principles, as well as regulatory compliance.
This is a comprehensive audit program requirement intended to allow the
operator to continuously monitor their operating systems and provide
for continuous improvement. In order to maintain Shield status, the
operator must successfully pass an audit each year. A direct benefit of
the Shield program for operators is that the insurance industry has
agreed to provide favorable rates for Shield carriers.
The Medallion Shield Program has expanded from 10 carriers in
August 2002 to 75 today. Of those, three have received their Shield and
27 have at least one Star. The State of Alaska now requires bidders for
any type of state contract involving air carriage to have at least one
star in the program. This work has yielded results. Since September
2004, there have been no fatalities involving part 135 air operators in
Alaska, a streak that we hope will long continue.
The Medallion Flyer Program is the general aviation counterpart of
the Shield Program. It is a voluntary program that targets all Part 91
operators, including flight schools, hunting and fishing guides, lodge
operators, Civil Air Patrol, and law enforcement agencies. The program
focuses on the adoption and implementation of personal safety and risk
management programs by Alaska's general aviation pilots. In addition to
an ongoing structured educational program, the Flyer Program uses
sophisticated flight training devices and flight simulators have been
purchased and are being used to improve the pilot skills of its
participants. More than 1,000 pilots are voluntarily participating in
the program, and more than 500 have completed the initial Medallion
training. Again, let's look at the bottom line. There have been no
fatalities involving any Medallion pilot who has completed initial
training. This says to me, let's just keep working together.
The last thing I would like to talk about today is something that I
know is of great concern to Senator Stevens and that is the President's
2007 budget request for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Senator
Stevens spoke with great eloquence and passion the last time I appeared
before his Committee on this matter, so I would like to take the time
to address his concerns head on.
I know Senator Stevens is uniquely situated to understand the
current budget climate in Washington, D.C. I also know the
Administration and Congress share the sense of obligation that we must
make the absolute best use of the taxpayers' dollars. Like other
government agencies, FAA had to take a hard look at our programs and
make some difficult choices. While I recognize that some people would
like to see the AIP funding level higher, the AIP budget request for
next fiscal year will meet the current needs of the nation's airports.
I also want to emphasize that Alaska's airport needs will continue to
be met. As I said at the outset of my statement, I understand the
importance of aviation to the State of Alaska. That is why, although
Alaska would see a reduction in AIP funding under our budget request,
it would rank second in the Nation in the amount of entitlement funds
it would receive, up from third in FY06. Surely that says something
about FAA's commitment to this important state.
Senator Stevens expressed his concern about how the AIP proposal
would affect access to rural areas in the state. Rural access projects
in Alaska are specifically included in the FAA's overall Flight Plan.
In addition, FAA's commitment to funding rural access projects is
evidenced by our recent investments. Our current Flight Plan continues
this initiative through FY 2011. This serves as our promise to the
people of Alaska that we will continue to give high priority to funding
rural access projects in the state.
Another concern expressed by Senator Stevens was the effect of the
President's AIP budget request would have on the Rural Alaska Lighting
Program, where aeronautical lighting is provided at remote unlit
communities throughout the state. There were 63 locations included in
that program. All 63 locations are now fully equipped with either an
interim or permanent lighting solution that provides for unconditional
24-hour visual flight rule (VFR) aviation access by emergency medical
aircraft. Thirty-one locations have received permanent lighting
solutions. The remainder are equipped with a highly effective interim
solution. Of those, 14 are expected to receive a permanent solution
prior to FY 2010. The remaining 18 have extreme challenges that are
likely to delay the installation of a permanent solution until after
2010. However, the program remains a priority for FAA and we anticipate
continuing to fund these projects as scheduled.
Finally, I would like to note that, while our commitment to
Alaska's rural communities is firm, at the same time we haven't
forgotten Anchorage. Ted Stevens International Airport has received
$14.2 million in discretionary funds to support their Letter of Intent
(LOI) projects and noise program. LOIs have the highest priority for
discretionary funds and are planned to be fully funded in FY07 under
the President's budget. Also, noise-related projects are funded from a
dedicated pool of discretionary funds. Therefore, we anticipate that
Alaska's noise projects will also be funded under the FY07 proposal.
Obviously, there are lots of important programs and projects going
on in Alaska that I haven't touched upon. Alaskans have a lot of energy
when it comes to aviation which is why it is always so much fun to
visit. I just want to end by saying that I appreciate the people of
Alaska, the uniqueness of Alaska and the special working bond that
exists here between the FAA and the aviation community. We can take
pride that our work here will ultimately benefit the entire country.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Blakey. And I note that with
regard to the FAA's weather cam programs, you have a brochure
for the people in attendance. You're going to hand that out
after the hearing, right?
Ms. Blakey. Yes.
The Chairman. And I'm delighted to have had a chance to
sneak a look at this new program. The effect of that will be to
have not only the Weather Channel but the FAA advisory and to
have a weather cam available at the destination the pilot has
selected. Right?
Ms. Blakey. Exactly. And you can follow flight plans from
this as well and consult with the flight service specialist. So
it gives a multitude of benefits. But the ability for pilots to
see for themselves what's exactly going on in real time is
invaluable.
The Chairman. And this is going to be the first one, at
Lake Hood?
Ms. Blakey. First one at Lake Hood and then I think we're
going to evaluate how that works. Pat has been working very
hard on this.
Mr. Poe. Actually, we will have two that we're going to
evaluate. One will be at Lake Hood and the second will be at
Yakutat. And we hope, by the end of this calendar year, to
confirm the viability and the workability of this. And, of
course, we'll interact with the pilots to see how we can make
it even better. Ultimately this is going to be an extended
component of our flight services within Alaska; it's just not a
weather camera device. And personally I----
The Chairman. Do you think that'll evolve so the pilot can
pick up weather en route, so you can get it into the cockpit?
Mr. Poe. You know, we've had that as a vision almost from
the beginning, combining weather camera technology with the
Capstone in-cockpit display. And many will say it's in reach. I
think it's--you have to reach far unfortunately, because of the
bandwidth and other things to move that video image. But that's
where we're going. I think it'd be great if a pilot could look
at alternatives if he or she found that their route of flight
was no longer safe and could do that in real time and visually.
So this, by the way, we received, I think, 2 weeks ago and so
it's really fresh in terms of an opportunity in----
The Chairman. Our Committee is working, and we'll soon take
to the floor, we hope, the new communications bill which will
have an impact on the allocation of broadband in the future.
Maybe we can work with your people in Washington, Ms. Blakey,
to see whether we could reserve a little bit more of that for
the FAA's purpose if this has got a national implication. We'll
be happy to look at that with you. I want to call attention to
the fact that Channon Hanna is here. Channon is part of Senator
Inouye's staff. He has sent his staff along as Co-Chairman to
monitor these hearings. This is sort of a lowball, but avian
flu is on the minds of everybody I've been talking to here in
Alaska. And have you had any particular role in avian flu
planning, considering the fact that we have become a major
destination for many people on the Asian continent? They come
through here or to here. Has the FAA been involved at all in
planning for the avian flu here?
Ms. Blakey. We've really had to be because I think that
everyone understands that it could have an enormous effect. And
there's a lack of predictability. So it does mean we're looking
at a number of scenarios and eventualities. We do have a plan
for the FAA on how to deal with an avian flu outbreak that
involves not only how we compensate for staff losses, how we
continue to provide air traffic control when you may have as
much as 40 percent diminution in your work force. Forty percent
because people may be ill or having to care for those who are
ill, or frankly unwilling to come into heavy congested areas.
So there is an effort, therefore, that we have made to make
sure we know how we would transfer responsibilities, from one
facility to another, what we would do to continue to cover the
safety responsibilities and all of that. When it comes to
passengers and how they would be handled coming into the
country, we're working very closely with the Department of
Homeland Security, of course through the Department of
Transportation, because this affects all modes of
transportation but particularly aviation. We're also working of
course with the Centers for Disease Control about what the best
methods are for handling quarantine and handling the specifics
of ill passengers coming in. It may be of interest, also, to
know that in addition to having a very strong written plan,
that we have flexed, we've been doing scenarios, the kind of
``what if'' tabletop exercises that I think also show you where
the gaps are. And then, finally, I just was at a meeting which
we called the National Aviation Trilateral Meeting. It's
between Canada, Mexico and the United States. And the three
heads of aviation for our countries, myself and my
counterparts, agreed that we would form a work force to deal
with the border issues and what will be the effects if we begin
to find avian flu crossing over which of course would affect
Alaska very much with the Canadian buffer between us. We are
committed to this summer putting in place a strong plan that we
would all then follow as the protocol on this. So there is a
good bit working. I won't tell you that it doesn't still pose
challenges, it does. But we're certainly working it very, very
actively and I think it's fair to say that a good plan is in
place.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for that. On Capstone, my
staff tells me that ADS-B was temporarily suspended here in
Alaska waiting for some certification. What's the status of
that now?
Ms. Blakey. Back in March we temporarily took Capstone off
the glass because we were--we became aware that we were using
Capstone in a way that was what we call a mixed environment,
ADS-B targets and radar targets. And we really had not gone
through the operational safety analysis of what kind of safe
separation standards should be involved there. We were aware
though, that Capstone is an important program for a variety of
flights providing a situational awareness for pilots that are
equipped and in the area. And so we quickly restored the flight
information services and the traffic information services that
we had with the program. Also, we have begun to work on the
certification requirements so that you can use the Capstone
program in a mixed environment coming out of the Anchorage
center. I'm pleased to say that we're making great progress. In
addition to turning on the services very quickly, we began June
15th on the air traffic control front to evaluate where we were
for ADS-B and ADS-B equipped aircraft. And then we have moved--
our plan is in July, July 15, so coming up very soon, to start
the operational evaluation of ADS-B to radar targets and to see
how those safe separation standards should be certified and
developed. We'll be doing that initially down in the Bethel
area. We will be at St. Mary's, Aniak, and then by August 15,
we expect to expand it further to Dillingham and King Salmon.
So we're really trying to take this in stages so that the
safety analysis is rigorous and will hold up. But we feel that
this should be, at this point, the way to go to a situation
where we're flexing the full capabilities of ADS-B for
separation.
The Chairman. I'm impressed with the Alaska-based
information. We're delighted that you'd be with us and give us
those answers. Let me ask Pat a question. Pat, do you know of
any pilots in the state that are still using LORAN?
Mr. Poe. No, I don't personally. Perhaps we have Bob
Hajdukovich and others here that will testify later, they might
be able to help you on that, sir.
The Chairman. I'm interested in that. We have the sudden
termination plan for the modernization of LORAN and we've
temporarily stopped that because we don't know that everyone is
transitioned to the new systems yet. I'd appreciate it if you'd
give us any knowledge that your people pick up as to whether
that LORAN program should be totally canceled. We do appreciate
very much your testimony. Channon, with Senator Inouye, do you
have anything else? And we thank you very much. We appreciate
your being willing to come up each year, Ms. Blakey, and to be
able to keep up with the developments of your programs here in
Alaska, they're very important. I'm told that the objectives
for phase three of Capstone will indicate a further reduction
in general aviation accidents of 15 percent. A goal is to have
a further reduction in general aviation fatal accidents by 33
percent and a reduction in commercial fatal accidents by 41
percent. And that goes on top of the progress that's already
been made. As I've indicated, it's our information that we
are--although we're about 10 percent of the Nation's air
program that we've made this substantial reduction already
through these programs. So those goals are very welcome for us.
It means a continued improvement in terms of safety for Alaska,
which is very vital. We appreciate your help.
Ms. Blakey. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that it is a
great privilege to be here because, as I testified, I learn a
great deal. And I have really become a champion of the Capstone
Program not just in our country, in moving to a national
program for the entire United States, but in a number of other
countries around the world. It was not very long ago I was
talking about Capstone in Alaska. I was talking about it in
Japan, and in Latin America with our counterparts. I very much
believe that ADS-B is the future that we all should move to and
you all are pioneering it so I thank you for that.
The Chairman. Maybe we could create a new position in the
Department of State for you, Pat, and make you the ambassador
for aviation safety worldwide.
Mr. Poe. I'm open for consideration.
The Chairman. You're ready, you're available, OK. Thank you
very much, we appreciate your coming. Our second panel this
morning is John Torgerson, the Deputy Commissioner of the
Alaska Department of Transportation; Tom George, the Alaska
Regional Representative for the Alaska Owners and Pilots
Association; Mort Plumb, the Director of Anchorage
International Airport; and Bob Hajdukovich, the Chief Operating
Officer for Frontier Flying Service. Gentlemen, we appreciate
your coming, and your willingness to participate in this
hearing.
Why don't I ask you to present any comments you wish to
make in the order that I read the names of the second panel, or
the way you're lined up is all right with me. John, you'd be
first, John Torgerson, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of
Transportation for Alaska.
STATEMENT OF JOHN TORGERSON, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ALASKA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Mr. Torgerson. Thank you, Senator, and welcome home. The
State of Alaska operates 258 airports ranging in size from Ted
Stevens Anchorage International, Fairbanks International to our
smallest community airports. Of the rural airport system, 47
are paved and 173 are gravel. And of those 173, 72 of those are
runways that are less than 3,000 feet. Today most of my remarks
will be concerning the rural airport system. And we have Mort
Plumb as part of the panel here to talk about the Ted Stevens
International and the Fairbanks International.
I'd like to start by expressing our thanks to the FAA for
the ongoing cooperative relationship with the State over the
years. We have found that our agencies share a common mission
in providing the infrastructure and air transportation in a
very large and difficult area. The willingness of the staff at
the FAA to face these challenges, together with their state
counterparts, continues to produce mutual benefits.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give you an update on the rural
airport lighting system that's something you have been involved
in over the years. So I'll give you a little update of where
we're at on that. The state has a strategic goal to improve
runways to a 24-hour VFR standard in communities that depend on
air medical evacuation. A Congressional study conducted in 1999
identified 63 communities that rely on aviation access for
medical evacuations that do not have the 24-hour VFR
capability. These 63 airports are our largest priority for
having 24-hour VFR access.
From Fiscal Year 2002 to Fiscal Year 2006, Congress made
special rural airport lighting appropriations of $38 million to
the FAA for the lighting and navigation improvements to these
airports. We have worked cooperatively with the FAA to apply
these monies to the communities on the list of deficient
airports to install lighting and navigation systems.
With these special appropriations we improved medical
access by deploying portable emergency lights for helicopter
landing zones in all communities. These lights facilitate safer
evacuation by the Coast Guard and the National Guard
helicopters in medical emergency situations.
For fixed wing land-based operations, at a minimum, an
adequate runway and runway edge lights are needed for the 24-
hour VFR operations. Preferably, runway edge lights, rotating
beacon, end identifier lights and precision approach path
indicators installed on a 3,300-foot runway or longer will be
developed as a package to allow the 24-hour access for maximum
safety. Unfortunately, many Alaska village airports are not
suitable in their current condition for installing permanent
lighting and require first significant improvements to their
length, width and surface condition to support nighttime
aircraft operations.
Since 1999, we have improved 29 of these 63 airports to the
24 hour VFR standards. Of those 29 completed airports, there
were nine that required major reconstruction or relocation in
order to support the 24 hour access standard. Another 6
airports will be improved to meet the 24 hour access standard
by fall of this year. And five of those require major
reconstruction or relocation. By the fall of 2008, another five
airports requiring major reconstruction or relocation are
expected to be improved to meet the standard. In addition to
the $38 million in special rural Alaska airport funding
appropriated to the FAA we have allocated approximately $150
million in AIP funding to these 40 airports to provide this
access.
Twenty-two additional communities await the permanent 24
hour solution for completion beyond 2008. Because most of them
will require major airport construction, reconstruction or
reallocation to meet these safe nighttime operations, we
currently estimate that more than $300 million will be required
to improve these additional 22 airports.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk just a moment on the AIP
Program. With your help, Mr. Chairman, the AIP Program has
grown from $126 million to $184 million in the last 5 years.
Alaska has benefited tremendously from the AIP program,
particularly in our rural communities where airports are our
highways, and Alaskans are grateful.
This is not to say we don't have unmet needs. The cost of
construction in rural Alaska is expensive. At most locations
the material and equipment needed to construct the airport must
be barged in from hundreds of miles away during the short
summer construction season. As communities grow and everyone
focuses on improved levels of service, such as those identified
in the 1999 medical access study, we could easily double our
AIP funding and still find ourselves behind.
Although Congress has not completed its work on the Fiscal
Year 2007 AIP budget, I would like to express my concerns
regarding the impacts of the President's proposed budget would
have on Alaska's rural airport system. Under the President's
proposed reduced funding levels, for the primary--for the rural
system we have--we could have an estimated 43.5 percent
decrease in primary funding and a 22.6 percent decrease in non-
primary funding available compared to our estimated Fiscal Year
2006 funding calculations. The House recently passed an AIP
authorization bill at the $3.7 billion level, which is the
maximum allowed under the AIP authorization bill, Vision 100.
We encourage the Senate to consider the House appropriations
and authorize the maximum appropriation set in Vision 100.
The current FAA regulations do not allow state aviation
organization sponsors to conduct the Environmental Impacts
required for certain types of aviation projects judged to have
significant impacts.
Currently, all required EISs must be managed by the FAA.
Recently authorized through the passage of TEA-LU, the Federal
Highway Administration allows State Department organizations,
such as Alaska Department of Transportation, to manage its own
EISs to completion. We would recommend that consideration be
given to align FAA regulations to allow knowledgeable sponsors
such as Alaska Department of Transportation to conduct EISs
with the FAA oversight as currently done in Environmental
Assessments.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, we are well aware that no other
state in the Nation has greater dependence upon aviation and
associated airport improvements as a principal means, for the
vast portions of Alaska the only practical means, of year-round
access to our communities and residents. This dependence on
aviation and airports provides Alaska with a unique perspective
on the need for airport improvements and their relative
priority to meeting critical system-wide airport needs through
the AIP. If I or my staff of the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities can be of assistance in helping your
community consider changes necessary to the FAA reauthorization
bill we would welcome the opportunity to provide that
assistance. From our international airport systems down to our
smaller village strips, our airport system is simply critical
to the state's economy, local economies and the health and
well-being of all Alaskans. I'd like to thank you, Mr.
Chairman, and be happy to answer any questions if you may have
some.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Torgerson follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Torgerson, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
The State of Alaska operates 258 airports, ranging in size from the
Ted Stevens Anchorage International, Fairbanks International, to small
community Airports. Of the rural airport system, 47 are paved, 173 are
gravel of which 72 runways are less than 3,000 feet. Today, I will
confine my remarks primarily to those issues that impact our rural
communities and allow Mort Plumb, our Airport Director for Anchorage to
testify on that system.
I would start by expressing our thanks to the FAA for its ongoing,
cooperative relationship with the state over the years. We have found
that our agencies share a common mission of providing the
infrastructure for air transportation in a very large, difficult, area.
The willingness of the staff at FAA to face these challenges together
with their state counterparts continues to produce mutual benefits.
Essential Air Service
I would like to recognize your support for the Essential Air
Service, and thank you for that continued support. This program remains
a critical support for safe, scheduled passenger service to 39 Alaska
communities, out of over 200 communities that are eligible. In some
cases, the service made possible by this program is the only way that
many Alaskans can get the medical help and other vital services that
they need.
Runway Lighting
The state has a strategic goal to improve runways to a 24-hour VFR
standard in communities that depend on air medical evacuation. A
Congressional study conducted in 1999 identified 63 communities that
relied on aviation access for medical evacuations and did not have 24-
hour VFR capable airports. These 63 airports are our highest priority
for providing 24 hour VFR capability.
From FFY02 through FFY06, Congress made special Alaska Rural
Airport Lighting appropriations of $38 million to the FAA for the
lighting and navigation improvements to Alaska's airports. We have
worked cooperatively with the FAA to apply these monies to the
communities on the list of deficient airports to install lighting and
navigation systems.
With these special appropriations, we have improved medical access
by deploying portable emergency lights for helicopter landing zones at
all communities. These lights facilitate safer evacuation by Coast
Guard and National Guard helicopters in medical emergency evacuations.
Civilian operators have also become certified to use these portable
lights.
For fixed wing land based operations, at a minimum, an adequate
runway and runway edge lights are needed for 24 hour VFR operations.
Preferably, runway edge lights, rotating beacon, end identifier lights,
and precision approach path indicators, installed on a 3,300-foot or
longer runway, will be developed as a package to allow 24-hour VFR
access with maximum safety. Unfortunately, many Alaskan village
airports are not suitable in their current condition for installing
permanent lighting and require first making significant improvements to
their length, width and surface condition to support nighttime aircraft
operations.
Since 1999, we have improved 29 of the 63 airports to 24-hour VFR
standards. Of these 29 completed airports, there were 9 airports that
required major reconstruction or relocation in order to support the 24-
hour access standard, due to their substandard condition. Another 6
airports will be improved to meet the 24-hour VFR access standard by
fall of this year, with 5 of these airports requiring major
reconstruction or relocation. By the fall of 2008, another 5 airports
requiring major reconstruction or relocation are expected to be
improved to meet the 24-hour VFR access standard. In addition to a
portion of the $38 million in special Rural Alaska Lighting funding
appropriated to FAA, we will have allocated approximately $150 million
in AlP funding to bring these 40 airports up to 24-hour VFR standards
by 2008.
Twenty-two additional communities await a permanent 24-hour VFR
solution for completion beyond 2008, because most of them will require
major airport construction, reconstruction or relocation to meet the
standards for safe nighttime operations. We currently estimate that
more than $300 million will be required to improve these additional 22
community airports to provide 24-hour VFR access.
The continuing support of Congress is greatly appreciated in
meeting this vital goal of providing 24 hour VFR capable airports to
these communities.
Safety
The FAA and all of those in the aviation community in Alaska should
be commended for their efforts in aviation safety. The reduction in
incidents/accidents that has been achieved in Alaska is remarkable. The
Capstone program has contributed to this reduction, as well as
achieving a large improvement in access for aviation in Alaska. This
improved access results from the fact that better weather reporting
means better IFR success rate, and therefore more completed flights.
The State of Alaska fully supports an accelerated transition to a new
national airspace system using space-based navigational aids.
Also, the Medallion program has made a significant contribution to
aviation safety. You will hear much about the good this program has
done, but simply stated, since many state employees fly to all corners
of the state, we all look for the Medallion logo on each airplane we
board.
TSA
We in Alaska are as concerned about transportation security as any
state in the Nation. We fully support the efforts to protect the
traveler and our Nation's security. We have many transportation assets,
such as the oil pipeline and terminal, the Port of Anchorage, the oil
fields, and others, the loss or disruption of which would be a severe
blow to our state and the country.
As it is currently structured, the TSA has three separate
organizations in Alaska. We believe that the three organizations could
be streamlined into one to provide consistent security oversight within
Alaska.
We believe, also, that at Alaska's rural airports, transportation
security can be achieved in a more efficient manner than at present.
Transportation security programs at these airports should be based on
threat analysis.
As transportation security is presently implemented at Alaska's
rural airports, oftentimes the number of TSA employees outnumbers other
airport employees. If a threat-based approach were used, security
interests in Alaska could be met with considerably less investment.
AIP Program
With your help, Mr. Chairman, the AIP program has grown from $126
million to $184 million in the last five years. Alaska has benefited
tremendously from the AIP program, particularly in our rural
communities, where airports are our highways, and Alaskans are
grateful.
This is not to say that we don't have unmet needs. The cost of
construction in rural Alaska is expensive. At most locations, the
materials and equipment needed to construct an airport must be barged
in from hundreds of miles away during a very short summer construction
season. As communities grow and everyone focuses on improved levels of
service such as those identified in the 1999 medical access study, we
could easily double our AIP spending and still find ourselves behind.
Although Congress has not completed its work on the FFY07 AIP
budget, I would like to express my concerns regarding the impacts the
President's proposed budget would have on Alaska's Rural Airport
System. Under the President's proposed reduced funding levels, for the
Rural System (Non-Discretionary funding only) we could have an
estimated 43.5 percent decrease in Primary funding and a 22.6 percent
decrease in Non Primary funding available compared to our estimated
FFY06 funding levels. The Alaska International Airport System and all
Discretionary funding are excluded from these calculations. The House
recently passed an AIP appropriations bill at the $3.7 billion level,
which is the maximum allowed under the AIP Authorization Bill, Vision
100. We encourage the Senate to consider the House AIP appropriations
bill and authorize the maximum appropriation set in Vision 100.
Wetlands
The application of the National Environmental Policy Act, as well
as section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49
U.S.C. 303(c)), to all airports, including rural airports, needs to be
clarified. At some point in time, a decision was made to designate a
piece of ground as an airport. It seems that designation identifies the
dominant use, and clearly specifies the objective for the designated
land.
I am not advocating running roughshod over the environment as these
airports are developed. I am advocating common sense application of
NEPA, Sec. 4(f), and other environmental laws to lands that have been
long designated for airport purposes. A great deal of time and money is
spent on living up to the letter of the law. Stringent application of
these laws results in added cost and protracted delays in needed
projects. Recognition of the primary purpose of lands designated as
airports should be incorporated into the implementation of
environmental laws at airports. For some of our rural airports
improvements, we are being required to develop a full Environmental
Impact Statement. We believe that the small footprints of disturbance
from our rural airport construction should allow us to conduct
environmental assessments, rather than a full NEPA Environmental Impact
Statement.
Environmental Impact Statement Development
The current FAA regulations do not allow State Aviation
Organization sponsors to conduct the Environmental Impact Statements
(EIS) required for certain types of aviation projects judged to have
significant impacts.
Currently, all required EISs must be managed by the FAA. Recently
authorized through the passage of TEA-LU, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) allows State Transportation Organizations such as
ADOT&PF to manage EISs to completion. We recommend that consideration
be given to changing FAA regulations to allow knowledgeable sponsors
such as ADOT&PF to conduct EISs with FAA oversight as currently done
with Environmental Assessments.
The Airports Division staff at FAA review and comment on all
Environmental Assessments (EA) and Categorical Exclusion (CE)
documents, but does not typically write environmental documents.
Consequently, their level of expertise at environmental documentation
may be less than the State Transportation Organization staff who
routinely write EAs and CEs for aviation and highway projects as well
as EIS documents for highway projects. This can lengthen the amount of
time needed to conduct the EIS as well as the fact that there are
relatively few FAA staff to manage EISs and also review and approve EAs
and CEs. We at ADOT&PF believe that we can move the EISs more
expeditiously through the process. Empowering the State Transportation
Organizations in the EIS process will also make them better able to
respond to other agencies, the public and the project proponents.
Closing
Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, no other state in the Nation
has greater dependence on aviation and the associated airport
improvements as the principal means, and for vast portions of Alaska
the only practical means, of year round access to our communities and
residents. This dependence on aviation and airports provides Alaska
with a unique perspective on the need for airport improvements and
their relative priority in meeting critical system wide airport needs
through the AIP. If I or the staff of the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities can be of assistance in helping
your Committee consider changes necessary to the FAA reauthorization
bill, we would welcome the opportunity to provide any assistance
requested.
From our international airports on down to the smallest village
strip, our airport system is simply crucial to the state's economy,
local economies, and the health and well-being of all Alaskans.
Alaskans appreciate the continuing support of the FAA and the
Congress for aviation in Alaska.
I thank you for the opportunity today, and will answer any
questions the members may have for me.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, John. Let's just go down
the table if that's all right. The next would be Bob
Hajdukovich, Chief Operating Officer, Frontier Flying Service.
Good morning, Bob.
STATEMENT OF BOB HAJDUKOVICH, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, FRONTIER
FLYING SERVICE
Mr. Hajdukovich. Good morning, Chairman Stevens. Thank you
for allowing me the opportunity to testify today with regard to
my experience with the unique issues facing the aviation
industry in Alaska today.
In the past 18 years, I have been witness to a distinctive
culture shift in the aviation community. Safety culture is no
longer a cliche or a catch phrase but rather a way of life for
most commercial operators in Alaska today. I directly attribute
this shift in the culture to programs such as the Medallion
Foundation, Capstone, the Alaska Air Carriers Association, the
Alaska Aviation Coordination Council, AOPA, and our FAA
leadership in Alaska among others, and Pat and John.
This safety culture has taken root. The industry is
committed to positive change, but continues to struggle. Just 6
years ago, Frontier paid a system-wide average price of 70
cents a gallon for jet fuel and today's price is $2.85 per
gallon, a 307 percent increase. We have a range from $2.30 on
jet fuel to $5.50 to some of the out stations. We get one-half
of the insurance coverage for twice the premium dollar today
while frivolous litigation continues to plague aviation. Our
engine and maintenance costs have risen 5 to 7 percent per
year. While these challenges are not unique to Alaska, our need
for improved infrastructure is.
I am what one might consider a Generation X Alaskan pilot.
I was born in Alaska and am fortunate to have a rich aviation
history in my family as well as my wife's. When I first started
full-time at Frontier in 1988 the industry had a culture of
``get the job done''. LORAN was the best thing since sliced
bread, except it didn't work in two-thirds of the state. I can
look back on my relatively short career in aviation and see a
great and continuing evolution of three things: infrastructure,
technology and safety culture.
I would like to point out some of the notable events that
our company has been witness to in the past 15 years. In
infrastructure, we've seen GPS approaches; AWOS, automated
weather observation systems; weather cameras; GBTs or ground-
based transmitters; wide area augmentation system, we have a
greater accuracy with the GPSs; downsizing of flight service
stations; and airport improvement projects.
In technology, the advent of the GPS; cockpit voice
recorders for nine or more seats in scheduled service; traffic
collision avoidance systems for nine or more seats in scheduled
service; ground proximity warning systems for nine or more
seats; digital flight data recorders for nine or more seats;
and terrain awareness warning systems for nine or more seats
and now driving down into the five-seat turbine aircraft;
Capstone I and II in Bethel and Southeast Alaska; sophisticated
desktop flight simulation devices which are many generations
beyond what I would have considered we could have done with the
desktop computers. We just recently invested in a simulation
device just based on desktop simulation. And ADS-B, Automatic
Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast.
In culture, Capstone made for affordable installation of
collision and terrain avoidance and situational awareness
equipment. Post 9/11 insurance rates, which we're still
recovering from, putting a greater emphasis today on safety
records and history of accidents when renewing insurance. It
couldn't be a better time for the Medallion Foundation.
Security awareness and mandated programs driving down into even
the smaller carriers. Conversion of Part 121 operations with a
greater emphasis on operational control. The Medallion
Foundation awarding stars emphasizing operational control,
company safety programs, use of simulation for controlled
flight into terrain situations, maintenance and ground
personnel training and procedures and internal audit programs.
Risk assessment: the process of elevating the decision to
accept or not accept risk to the highest level of management
necessary to address the level of risk. Capstone II, affordable
installation of WAAS compatible equipment, traffic awareness
and creation of WAAS-based approaches and airways. The Rural
Service Improvement Act or the Bypass Mail Program with an
emphasis on carrying passengers in Part 121 operations and
reducing costs to the Postal Service. While there is much
controversy about many facets of the Bypass Mail System, the
number of air carriers providing service to the remote
communities in Alaska has shrunk dramatically. Because fewer
flights are being flown on a daily basis, the risk of accidents
has been reduced. However, the aircraft left in the system are
larger and require better airport conditions. To maximize the
benefit of Part 121 operations, the airports and associated
airway infrastructure need to be commensurate with the high
standards and demands of 121 operations. ATOS, the Air
Transportation Oversight System, is an FAA program of oversight
that emphasizes evaluating the elements of certification and
the validation of certificated 121 carriers. And the ASAP
Program, Aviation Safety Action Program, a collaborative non-
reprisal program with the industry, the FAA and employees that
gathers data on safety issues that would not otherwise have
been reported.
So what's missing? I guess that's why I'm here today, to
let you know the needs of aviation in Alaska.
1. Continued funding of Medallion Foundation.
2. Funding support for Capstone Phase III. The total amount
to outfit the rest of the state's aircraft in GA and commercial
is upwards of $70 million. This will put WAAS units and ADS-B
receivers in most of the active fleet in Alaska. While the up-
front costs seem large, it will enable the FAA to look down the
road and decommission some of the legacy ground aids that are a
draw on the system. The FAA must follow through on its
commitment to install ground-based transmitters throughout the
state. This provides us with improved rural access.
3. Continued support on maximum AIP funding. We would like
to see more discretion given to the state on surface
maintenance spending versus capital projects. The Bypass Mail
System has encouraged Part 121 operations. The state will
inevitably see more Part 121 operations and operators in the
future. Today AIP funding is linked to enplanements, which
should also take into consideration the type of operation at
the runway. For example, if the runway is served by a 121
carrier, the AIP funding formula should automatically consider
the airport to be a primary airport and be exempt from the
10,000-enplanement requirement. This will ensure that the
airport gets funded for the safest level of ground operations.
In conclusion, I'd like to thank you for joining us in
pioneering new technologies and proactive safety systems. As a
friend of mine once said, the problem with being a pioneer is
that you get the most arrows. The unprecedented Part 135/121
safety record in 2005 speaks not only to your continued
support, but to our desire to be the standard to which other
parts of our great country are measured. Thank you for your
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hajdukovich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bob Hajdukovich, Chief Operating Officer,
Frontier Flying Service
Good morning, Chairman Stevens, and Members of the Committee. Thank
you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today with regard to my
experience with the unique issues facing the aviation industry in
Alaska today.
In the past eighteen years, I have been witness to a distinctive
culture shift in the aviation community. Safety culture is no longer a
cliche or catch phrase but rather a way of life for most commercial
operators in Alaska today. I directly attribute this shift in culture
to programs such as the Medallion Foundation, Capstone, the Alaska Air
Carriers Association, The Alaska Aviation Coordination Council, AOPA
and our FAA leadership in Alaska among others.
This Safety culture has taken root. The industry is committed to
positive change, but continues to struggle; just six years ago Frontier
paid a system wide average price of 70 cents per gallon for jet fuel
and today's price is $2.85 per gallon (a 307 percent increase). We get
one-half the insurance coverage for twice the premium dollar while
frivolous litigation continues to plague aviation. Our engine and
maintenance cost have risen five to seven percent per year. While these
challenges are not unique to Alaska, our need for improved
infrastructure is.
I am what one might consider a Generation X Alaskan pilot. I was
born in Alaska and am fortunate to have a rich aviation history in my
family as well as my wife's. When I first started full time at Frontier
in 1988 the industry had a culture of ``get the job done.'' LORAN was
the best thing since sliced bread, except it did not work in two-thirds
of the state. I can look back on my relatively short career in aviation
and see a great and continuing evolution of three things;
infrastructure, technology and safety culture.
I would like to point out some of the notable events that our
company has been witness to just in the past fifteen years:
Infrastructure
GPS approaches
AWOS--automated weather systems
Weather Cameras
GBT--Ground Based Transmitters
WAAS--Wide Area Augmentation System
Downsizing of Flight Service Stations
Airport Improvement projects
Technology
GPS
CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) for 9 or more seats
TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) for 9 or more
seats
GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) for 9 or more seats
DFDR (Digital Flight Data Recorder) for 9 or more seats
TAWS or EGPWS (Terrain Awareness Warning System) for 9 or
more seats
Capstone I / II (Bethel and Southeast Alaska)
Sophisticated desktop flight simulation devices
ADS-B--Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
Culture
Capstone I--affordable installation of collision, terrain
avoidance and situation awareness equipment.
Post 9/11 insurance rates--putting a greater emphasis on
safety records and history of accidents when renewing
insurance.
Security awareness and mandated programs.
Conversion to Part 121--greater operational control.
Medallion Foundation--Stars emphasizing Operational Control,
Company Safety Program, use of simulation for Controlled Flight
into Terrain situations, Maintenance and Ground personnel
training and procedures and Internal Audit Programs.
Risk Assessment--The process of elevating a decision, to
accept or not accept risk, to the highest management level
necessary to address the ``Level'' of risk.
Capstone II--Affordable installation of WAAS compatible
equipment, traffic awareness and creation of WAAS based
approaches and airways.
RSIA--Rural Service Improvement Act--emphasis on carrying
passengers and Part 121 operations and reducing costs to the
Postal Service. While there is much controversy about many
facets of RSIA, the number of Air Carriers providing service to
the remote communities in Alaska has shrunk dramatically.
Because fewer flights are being flown on a daily basis, the
risk of accidents has been reduced. However, the aircraft left
in the system are larger and require better airport conditions.
To maximize the benefit of Part 121 operations, the airports
and associated airway infrastructure need to be commensurate
with the high standards and demands of 121.
ATOS--Air Transportation Oversight System--An FAA method of
oversight that emphasizes evaluating elements of certification
and validation of certificated 121 carriers.
ASAP--Aviation Safety Action Program--a collaborative non-
reprisal program with the industry, FAA and employees that
gathers data on safety issues that would not have otherwise
been reported.
So What's Missing?
Which I guess is really why I am here today, to let you know the
needs of aviation in Alaska.
1. Continued funding of the Medallion Foundation.
2. Funding support for Capstone Phase III--The total amount to
outfit the rest of the state's aircraft (GA and Commercial) is
$70 million. This will put WAAS units and ADS-B in most of the
active fleet in Alaska. While the up-front costs seem large, it
will enable the FAA to look down the road and decommission some
of the legacy ground aids that are a draw on the system. The
FAA must follow through on its commitment to install ground
based transmitters (GBT) throughout the state.
3. Continued support on maximum AIP funding--We would like to
see more discretion given to the state on surface maintenance
spending versus capital projects. RSIA has encouraged Part 121
Operations. The state will inevitably see more Part 121
operations and operators in the future. Today, AIP funding is
linked to enplanements but should also take into consideration
the type of operation at the runway. For example, if the runway
is served by a Part 121 carrier, the AIP funding formula should
automatically consider the airport to be a primary airport and
be exempt from the 10,000-emplanement requirement. This will
ensure that the airport gets funded for the safest level of
ground operation.
In conclusion, I would like to thank you both for joining us in
pioneering new technologies and proactive safety programs. As a friend
of mine once said, ``The problem with being a pioneer is that you get
the most arrows.''
The unprecedented Part 135/121 safety record in 2005 speaks not
only to your continued support, but to our desire to be the standard to
which other parts of our great country are measured.
Thank you for your time.
The Chairman. Our next witness is Mort Plumb, the Director
of the Anchorage Airport.
STATEMENT OF MORTON V. PLUMB, JR., DIRECTOR, TED STEVENS
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Plumb. Good morning, Chairman Stevens, members of the
staff. My name is Mort Plumb, I'm Director of the Ted Stevens
Anchorage International Airport. I appreciate the opportunity
to speak with you today about the particular interests of our
airport and about matters of importance to commercial service
airports across the country.
I'm proud of the airport's role in the National Air
Transportation System as the primary transpacific gateway for
international cargo, an important stop for international
passenger routes as well as a commercial hub for some 260
communities throughout Alaska. Since the beginning of airfield
operations more than 50 years ago, Anchorage International has
grown to be number one for landed gross weight for cargo
airport and third ranking cargo airport in the world based on
cargo tonnage. Anchorage International air cargo operations
have averaged 7 percent growth over the past 10 years and we
expect Anchorage air cargo operations to continue to increase.
Due to the strong growth in Asia-U.S. trade and record fuel
prices, our Nation reaps economic benefits as more and more
cargo carriers capitalize on the efficiencies afforded by
Alaska's strategic position on the Pacific Rim. They recognize
that a refueling stop at Anchorage is the key to maximum cargo
payloads and peak economic efficiency for transpacific
freighter flights. Further, thanks to your leadership, Mr.
Chairman, in 2004 Congress approved flexibility of
international and domestic carriers to achieve additional
efficiencies by cross-loading, sorting and clearing cargo in
Anchorage to reach multiple locations in the U.S. for eastbound
freight and Asia for westbound freight. So far, at least four
carriers are using this flexibility to reach more destinations
more efficiently, all to the benefit of the United States
economy.
The visitor industry continues to increase passenger
traffic as well. This summer construction will begin on a
$176.8 million passenger terminal project to complement the new
C Concourse which opened in 2004. This project is scheduled to
be completed by 2010. For both airports in the Alaska
International Airport System, Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport and Fairbanks International Airport,
Passenger Facility Charges or PFCs are part of the formula for
success. As I'll discuss in a minute, Alaska's airport system
joins other airports across the country in requesting updates
to the PFC program.
In addition to passenger infrastructure improvements,
Anchorage International will see over $100 million in private
expansion of air cargo facilities. As one of the first airports
that will host the Airbus A-380 in 2009 on FedEx and UPS ramps
here, the airport is preparing its airfield with the help of
the FAA Letter of Intent discussed by the Administrator. The
LOI program, as I will discuss, is critical to Anchorage's
ability to accommodate this 1.3 million pound aircraft.
Keeping in mind the very strong performance and outlook
here at Anchorage International, let me turn now to a major
issue with which we need this Committee's continued and
strengthened support.
Chairman Stevens, your staff has worked diligently over the
past 3 years on the Transit Without Visa Waiver issue, better
known as TWOV. I testified last summer before your Committee
and am back again this year still asking for your help in
resolving the TWOV issue. I am disappointed to report to you
that rather than being closer to a resolution with DHS, TSA and
CBP, we quite frankly see no end in sight. In April, Governor
Murkowski and I met with Secretary Michael Chertoff here in
Alaska to seek his help in reinstating TWOV in Alaska. Although
Secretary Chertoff was receptive and committed to provide an
answer 30 days from April 4th, the issue remains unresolved. I
have learned that DHS has again gained interest in working this
issue since July 3rd when advance copies of my testimony were
made available. However, DHS has not yet--has yet been unable
to develop a solution satisfactory to all its component
interests.
In the past, we've tried to allay the concern that
reinstatement of TWOV at Anchorage would set an undesirable
precedent. In reality, however, under well established existing
precedent over the past 20 years, Anchorage transit stops have
been handled according to Anchorage's unique circumstances
without establishing precedent replicated at other U.S.
airports. A program that allows non-U.S. passengers without a
U.S. visa to deplane into the secure transit lounge at Ted
Stevens Anchorage International Airport and get back on the
same aircraft without re-screening is supported by Anchorage's
special circumstances and sets no precedent for other airports.
Another concern is that a nationwide transit program should
not be reinstated. But DHS need not reinstate a national
transit program. DHS could reinstate the program only to
include flights where all passengers arrive and depart on the
same aircraft in flight and remain in a secure facility,
physically separated from non-transit gates. Or DHS could
simply limit the reinstatement program to Anchorage.
Our original, simple request to CBP was to allow carriers
to enplane and deplane passengers on transit flights into our
special, secure transit facility at Anchorage when stopping en
route through Alaska to other foreign destinations. In this
simple request, well meaning Federal officials have identified
a thicket of technical issues, none of which, we believe, pose
any reasonable threat to U.S. aviation security. The largest
issue, for example, is TSA's concern that no Federal employee
would personally re-screen these few hundred passengers each
day who were previously screened at a foreign point of origin
and who merely visit our transit lounge before continuing to a
foreign destination on the same aircraft on which they arrived.
In doing so, DHS is reading a security issue into what is
really a labor issue. Based on what we believe to be a
stretched reading of the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (ATSA), the TSA believes it raises an issue to allow a TSA-
screened passenger to join such a flight transiting through
Anchorage to a foreign destination, though there appear to be
no material security concerns. Mr. Chairman, we request your
Committee to convey to DHS that ATSA's requirement that Federal
employees do the screening for U.S. origin flights and flight
segments is a labor and control provision. It stipulates who
must do the screening at U.S. airports, and does not dictate
that foreign screened passengers must be re-screened or kept
separate from TSA-screened passengers.
We have spent over $1 million in terminal modifications to
separate CBP-cleared passengers from un-cleared passengers. Now
TSA is asking us to again modify the terminal to separate the
foreign-screened passengers from the TSA-screened passengers.
Any justification for this requirement disappears in the face
of the TSA's position that such differently screened passengers
may not mix in the terminal, but they can mix onboard the
aircraft. As a matter of fact, we understand that mixing on the
airplane has not caused any reported incidents at other
airports where it's been occurring successfully for some time.
Let me just quickly explain what the DHS is asking us to do
with these people. They are asking that these passengers
deplane, go through a document certification, technically exit
to the United States by going outside the secure sterile area,
come back into the sterile area through TSA screening, then go
through the U.S. Visit program, fill out the forms and get back
on the airplane. It appears to be a waste of time, manpower,
labor and does not add any security to this country.
All of these processes must be done within the 90-minute
ground time. The airline staff spends the entire time getting
passengers through DHS process and back on the airplane just to
be able to board a few originating passengers in Anchorage.
Currently we have 18 international passenger flights that
arrive each week, only four of which are actually permitted to
deplane into the terminal. These flights have operated safely
and securely for nearly 20 years without incident. We truly
believe these modifications are unnecessary because the basis
for the demands have no material security rationale. But if DHS
insists on imposing these segregation or re-screening
requirements that cannot, at the end of the day, reasonably be
justified as furthering U.S. security interests, then we
believe the Federal Government should bear the burden of paying
these costs of infrastructure and additional screeners.
Our main goal continues to be that all passengers be
allowed off the airplane into the sterile, secure transit
facility with minimal processing, yet exposed to U.S. security
officials. We firmly believe the additional processing that DHS
is requiring here in Anchorage will soon push carriers to over-
fly Alaska and the U.S. altogether, to the detriment of both
the Alaska economy and U.S. security.
Let me turn to an issue now that has been addressed by some
of the other panelists. Although the TWOV and transit passenger
processing are our most urgent issues, Federal funding issues
loom large on the horizon. Alaska could face a major funding
challenge were AIP funding allowed to fall below $3.2 billion.
A level of funding below this amount would greatly reduce
Anchorage's critical cargo entitlements. As you are aware,
Anchorage serves as a critical transit and transfer point for a
large proportion of international air cargo to and from the
United States. Funding for our cargo support infrastructure is
truly a concern for our national economy. We recommend that
cargo entitlements be increased a modest .05 percent, from 3.5
to 4 percent, to better balance the increased cargo
infrastructure needs compared with passenger infrastructure
needs.
With regard to flexibility in AIP spending, in addition to
AIP formula issues, restrictions on the use of these funds has
also become an issue. The current FAA regulations are
restrictive on the ability of airports to use their entitlement
funding. With greater flexibility, airports could use this
funding a little more efficiently.
For example, it would make sense to use AIP funds to
purchase a larger runway snow blower here at Anchorage. This
new snow blower which clears twice the width of any current
equipment would make our winter operations more efficient,
safer for the airlines, economical--and increase safety. The
only manufacturer with a proven reliability is a foreign
entity. Special condition nine of the AIP grant agreement
precludes us from purchasing this and other essential pieces of
equipment using AIP funds.
PFC flexibility. Although airports enjoy somewhat greater
flexibility on the use of Passenger Facility Charges, current
FAA restrictions include sometimes burdensome limits on PFC
use. In addition, current FAA regulations reduce AIP funding to
both medium and large hub airports when they raise Passenger
Facility Charges to any level above $3.00. This provision
effectively penalizes a medium hub airport such as Anchorage
that collects a higher PFC, but does not have a large hub
passenger volume to make up for the loss of AIP funds. When the
FAA states a larger reservoir of PFC dollars remains untapped
by some airports, it doesn't include or consider the higher
penalties if you do get more AIP funds. PFCs are not Federal
funds. Those collections should not be subject to any offset of
Federal dollars for medium hub airports. Anchorage is a perfect
example of an airport that could grow this capital funding
source for much needed projects were the AIP offset rule
abolished for medium hubs. To strengthen the PFC program for
the benefit of airports nationwide, we do support a higher
maximum PFC. But we also need to reduce the penalty for
collecting a higher PFC.
Turning now from general infrastructure funding, I want to
address the special challenge of security funding. As you know,
the airport operating environment has changed dramatically
since the 9/11 attacks. The Transportation Security
Administration continues to place new requirements on airports
without providing airports any funding to carry out the new
requirements. In fact, Senator, we are still waiting for an LOI
promised by the former TSA Administrator, Admiral Loy, who in
2003 committed to this airport and committed to you and to the
staff.
While we have worked very closely with TSA leadership,
Anchorage was promised that a new security requirement would be
reimbursed by TSA. To date, these commitments have not been
fulfilled. To date, Anchorage has spent $19.6 million to fund
TSA-mandated security enhancements in Concourse C and is
projected to spend another $15 million in Concourse A. The
failure of the Federal Government to fund these security
mandates has compelled Anchorage to use revenues that would
otherwise be available for important infrastructure
developments. This burden has now been placed on our air
carriers, many in dire financial crisis. I am hopeful the Ted
Stevens Anchorage International Airport will participate in the
proposed funds in the 2007 DHS spending bill.
In conclusion, the Ted Stevens Anchorage International
Airport competes in a worldwide market of Olympic proportions.
Our nation's good economic scores in today's global business
environment reflect Anchorage's contribution in delivering
value for the lowest cost. Air cargo is claiming a growing
proportion of international trade within the world. The Federal
rules by which gateway airports must play and rules that burden
AIP funds and PFCs have an important effect on our ability to
provide services at the lowest possible cost to keep pace with
other market forces. We believe our proposals for
infrastructure and procedural enhancements while ensuring
aviation safety and security are essential.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not note my great
appreciation for the incredible support of our outgoing
Secretary of Transportation, Norm Mineta. His personal support
to me and to the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport
has been superb. Under his leadership and that of Administrator
Blakey, former Associate Administrator of Airports, Woodie
Woodward, Acting Associate Director Kate Lang and Alaska
Airports Division Deputy Manager, Deb Roth, the Ted Stevens
Anchorage International Airport has become the Olympic capable
world class airport it is today.
Thank you, Chairman Stevens and Administrator Blakey, for
your continuing leadership in providing resources and adopting
new cargo legislation to help this great airport serve the
Nation's interests. I would also like to thank Senator Inouye
for his continued support for Alaska and our international
airport system. We look forward to working with you to
implement these reforms we have suggested today to continue our
strong record to make this a secure airport and an economical
airport for our air carriers. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my
remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Plumb follows:]
Prepared Statement of Morton V. Plumb Jr., Director, Ted Stevens
Anchorage International Airport
Good morning, Chairman Stevens and Members of the Committee. My
name is Mort Plumb and I am the director of Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you
today about the particular interests of the Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport (ANC) and about matters of importance to
commercial service airports across the country.
I am proud of the Airport's role in the National Air Transportation
System as the primary transpacific gateway for international cargo, an
important stop for international passenger routes as well as a
commercial hub for some 260 communities throughout Alaska. Since the
beginning of airfield operations more than 50 years ago, Anchorage
International has grown to be number one for landed gross weight for
cargo airports and the third ranking cargo airport in the world based
on cargo tonnage. Anchorage's international air cargo operations have
averaged 7 percent growth over the past 10 years and we expect
Anchorage's air cargo operations to continue this trend.
Due to strong growth in Asia-U.S. trade and record fuel prices, our
Nation reaps economic benefits as more and more cargo carriers
capitalize on efficiencies afforded by Alaska's strategic position on
the Pacific Rim. They recognize that a refueling stop at ANC is the key
to maximum cargo payloads and peak economic efficiency for transpacific
freighter flights. Further, thanks to your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in
2004 Congress approved flexibility of international and domestic
carriers to achieve additional efficiencies by cross-loading, sorting
and clearing cargo in ANC to reach multiple locations in the U.S. for
eastbound freight and in Asia for westbound freight. So far, at least
four carriers are using this flexibility to reach more destinations
more efficiently--all to the benefit of the United States economy.
The visitor industry continues to increase passenger traffic as
well. This summer construction will begin on a $176.8 million Passenger
Terminal project to complement the new C Concourse which opened in
2004. This project is scheduled to be completed by 2010. For both
airports in the Alaska International Airport System (Ted Stevens
Anchorage International Airport and Fairbanks International Airport)
Passenger Facility Charges, or PFCs, are part of the formula for
success, but as I will discuss in a minute, Alaska's airport system
joins other airports across the country in requesting important updates
in the PFC program.
In addition to passenger infrastructure improvements, Anchorage
International will see over $100 million in private expansion of air
cargo facilities. As one of the first airports that will host the
Airbus A-380 in 2009 on FedEx and UPS ramps here, the airport is
preparing its airfield, with the help of FAA Letter of Intent funds.
Modifying the LOI program, as I will discuss, is critical to ANC's
ability to accommodate this 1.3 million-pound aircraft.
Keeping in mind the very strong performance and outlook here at
Anchorage International, let me turn now to the major issues with which
we need this Committee's continued and strengthened support.
Transit Without Visa
Senator Stevens, your staff has worked tirelessly over the last
three years, on the Transit Without Visa issue. I testified last summer
before your Committee and am back again this year still asking for your
help in resolving the TWOV issue. I am disappointed to report to you
that rather than being closer to a resolution with DHS, TSA, and CBP,
we quite frankly, see no end in sight. In April, Governor Murkowski and
I met with Secretary Michael Chertoff here in Alaska to seek his help
in reinstating TWOV in Alaska. Although Secretary Chertoff was
receptive, the issue remains unresolved.
Our original, simple request to CBP was to allow carriers to
enplane and deplane passengers on transit flights into our special,
secure, transit facility at ANC when stopping en route through Alaska
to other foreign destinations. In this simple request, well-meaning
Federal officials have identified a thicket of technical issues, none
of which, we believe, pose any appreciable threat to U.S. aviation
security. The largest issue, for example, is TSA's concern that no
Federal employee would personally re-screen these few hundred
passengers each day who were previously screened at a foreign point of
origin under ICAO standards, and who merely visit our transit lounge
before continuing to a foreign destination on the same aircraft on
which they arrived. Based on what we believe to be a stretched reading
of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the TSA believes it
raises an issue to allow a TSA-screened passenger to join such a flight
transiting through Anchorage to the foreign destination, though there
appear to be no material security concerns.
We have spent over $1 million in terminal modifications to separate
CBP-cleared passengers from un-cleared passengers. Now TSA is asking us
to again modify the terminal to separate the ICAO-screened passengers
from TSA-screened passengers. Any justification for this requirement
disappears in the face of the TSA's position that such differentially-
screened passengers may not mix in the terminal, but may mix onboard
the airplane. As a matter of fact, we understand that mixing on the
plane has not caused any reported incidents at other airports where it
been occurring successfully for some time.
Let me explain the entire DHS-proposed international transit
passenger processes:
1. Passengers must process through CBP including passport
verification, immigration document processing submitting I-94
forms, and U.S. Visit fingerprinting and photograph.
2. Passengers then exit through Customs submitting Customs
Declaration Forms.
3. Passengers must then be re-screened through TSA screening.
4. Finally, passengers return to the gate area, where they must
soon thereafter perform exit procedures through U.S. Visit,
submitting fingerprint and photo information once again.
All of these processes must be done within the 90-minute ground
time. The airline staff spends the entire ground time getting
passengers through the DHS processes and back on airplane just to be
able to board a few passengers originating in Anchorage.
Currently we have 18 international passenger flight arrivals each
week. These flights have operated safely and securely for nearly 20
years. We truly believe these modifications are unnecessary because the
basis for the demands have no material security rationale. But if DHS
insists on imposing these segregation and/or re-screening requirements
that cannot, at the end of the day, reasonably be justified as
furthering U.S. security interests, then the Federal Government should
bear the burden of paying the cost of infrastructure and additional
screeners.
Our main goal continues to be that all passengers be allowed off
the airplane into the sterile, secure transit facility with minimal
processing, yet exposed to U.S. security officials. We firmly believe
the additional processing that DHS is requiring here in Anchorage will
soon push carriers to overfly Alaska and the U.S. altogether, to the
detriment of both the Alaska economy and U.S. security.
AIP Funding Levels and Formula
Although TWOV and transit passenger processing are our most urgent
issues, Federal funding issues loom large on the horizon. Alaska could
face a major funding challenge were AIP funding allowed to fall below
$3.2 billion. A level of funding below this amount would greatly reduce
Anchorage's critical cargo entitlements. Anchorage relies more heavily
on cargo entitlements than any other airport in the nation. Because ANC
serves as a critical transit and transfer point for a large proportion
of international air cargo to and from the United States, funding for
our cargo support infrastructure is truly a concern for our national
economy, and not merely local interests. We recommend that cargo
entitlements be increased 0.5 percent from 3.5 percent to 4 percent to
better balance the increased cargo infrastructure needs compared with
passenger infrastructure needs. In past years, an effort was made to
reduce or cap cargo's share of the funding formula. With growth in
heavy air cargo continuing to outpace passenger growth, a modest
increase in cargo's share is more appropriate.
Flexibility for AIP Spending
In additional to AIP formula issues, restrictions on use of these
funds has also become an issue. Current FAA regulations are very
restrictive on the ability of airports to use their entitlement
funding. With greater flexibility, airports could use this funding more
efficiently.
For example, it would make sense for us to use AIP funds to
purchase a larger runway snow blower to be used on the larger runways
and taxiways we are building to accommodate the new larger aircraft.
This new snow blower, which clears twice the width of any current
equipment, would make our winter operations more efficient, economical
and increase safety. The only manufacturer with a proven reliability is
a foreign entity. Special condition 9 of the AIP grant agreement
precludes us from purchasing this and other essential pieces of
equipment using AIP funds.
PFC Flexibility, Penalty and Ceiling
Although airports enjoy somewhat greater flexibility on use of
Passenger Facility Charges, there again FAA restrictions include
unnecessary and administratively burdensome limits on PFC use. In
addition, current FAA regulations reduce AIP funding to medium and
large hub airports when they raise Passenger Facility Charges to any
level above $3.00. This provision effectively penalizes an airport that
collects a higher PFC--depending on passenger volumes, the loss of AIP
can exceed any additional PFC revenues. When the FAA asserts that a
large reservoir of PFC dollars remains untapped by airports that do not
adopt higher PFC rates, that assessment ignores this penalty. PFCs are
not Federal funds; those collections should not be subject to any more
than minimal restrictions and should not offset Federal dollars. ANC is
a perfect example of an airport that could grow this capital funding
source for much-needed projects were the AIP offset rule abolished. To
strengthen the PFC program for the benefit of airports nationwide, we
do support a higher maximum PFC, but we also need to abolish or reduce
the penalty for adopting a higher PFC if the program is to live up its
potential.
TSA
Turning now from general infrastructure funding, I want to address
the special challenge of security funding. As you know the airport
operating environment has changed dramatically since the 9/11 attacks.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) continues to place new
requirements on airports without providing airports any funding to
carry out the new requirements. In fact, Senator, we are still waiting
for an LOI promised by former TSA Administrator Loy in 2003.
While we have worked very closely with TSA leadership, Anchorage
was promised that new security requirements would be reimbursed by TSA.
To date, these commitments have not been fulfilled. To date, ANC has
spent $19.6 million to fund TSA-mandated security enhancements in
Concourse C and is projected to spend another $15.0 million in
Concourses A & B. The failure of the Federal Government to fund these
security mandates has compelled ANC to use revenues that would
otherwise be available for important infrastructure development needs.
This burden has now been placed on our air carriers, many in dire
financial crises. I am hopeful Ted Stevens Anchorage International
Airport will participate in the proposed funds in the 2007 DHS Spending
Bill.
Air Cargo Security
A security issue of particular importance for Anchorage
International is the Department of Homeland Security's recently issued
final rules for Air Cargo Security. The approach resulted from
collaboration with all parties and correctly emphasizes a threat-based
system in air cargo. ANC had already created its own Working Group on
Air Cargo Security at ANC with the industry and interested agencies to
get a sense of what is realistic and what is overkill, especially for
all-cargo air freighters. Our Working Group participated in the
national policy process. There are those, on the other hand, who
propose such extreme proposals as 100 percent cargo screening and
inspection. The effect on our economy, we believe, must be weighed
against the threat of attack on air cargo aircraft. In fact, devoting
DHS resources to 100 percent inspection for cargo would either require
a tremendous additional commitment of Federal funds or it would
actually reduce security by pulling inspectors from the tragically
proven threat to passenger aircraft. We applaud Congress' awareness
that an overzealous bureaucratic solution may not be a good solution at
all.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport competes
in a worldwide market of Olympic proportions. Our nation's good
economic scores in today's global business environment reflect ANC's
contribution in delivering value for lowest cost. Air cargo is claiming
a growing proportion of international trade with the world. The Federal
rules by which gateway airports must play and rules that burden AIP
funds and PFCs have an important effect on our ability to provide
services at the lowest possible cost to keep pace with other market
forces. We believe our proposals for infrastructure and procedural
enhancements while ensuring aviation safety and security are essential.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not note my great appreciation
for the incredible support of our outgoing Secretary of Transportation
Norm Mineta, his personal support to me and his professional support of
the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. Under his leadership
and that of Administrator Blakey, former Associate Administrator of
Airports, Woodie Woodward, Acting Associate Administrator Kate Lang and
Alaska Deputy Manager for Airports Division, Deb Roth, the Ted Stevens
Anchorage International Airport has become the Olympic-capable world-
class airport it is today.
Thank you, Senator Stevens and Administrator Blakey, for your
continuing leadership in providing resources and adopting new cargo
legislation to help this great airport serve the nation's interests. I
would also like to thank Senator Inouye for his continued support for
Alaska and our International Airport System. We look forward to working
with you to implement the reforms we have suggested today to continue
our strong record of contribution to a secure and efficient national
air transportation system. That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Our last witness is Tom George, the Alaska
Regional Representative for AOPA.
STATEMENT OF TOM GEORGE, ALASKA REGIONAL
REPRESENTATIVE, AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS
ASSOCIATION
Mr. George. Good morning. And thank you for the invitation
to participate in the panel this morning. My name is Tom George
and I serve as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's
Regional Representative for Alaska on behalf of over 4,200
members in the state. I'd briefly like to touch on several
issues that concern us today.
Funding for the FAA. For the past year, debate over how to
fund the Federal Aviation Administration and its associated
programs has been underway. The airlines and the FAA are
advocating to replace aviation taxes with the user fee system,
including taking the air traffic control system out from under
the management and oversight and budgetary control of the
Congress. For many of us in Alaska are questioning why
Washington would totally change the effective mechanism that
currently funds the safest, most efficient aviation system in
the world. Without Congress acting as FAA's Board of Directors,
Alaska's needs would likely be shortchanged.
The FAA claims the Aviation Trust Fund is insufficient and
provides funding in a manner that is unpredictable. But the
fact of the matter is, with ticket prices and the number of
passengers increasing, more money is going into the Trust Fund
than ever. Alaska is so reliant on aviation and it plays such
an important role in the economic backbone of the state, isn't
it appropriate for 25 percent of the FAA's costs to be funded
by the general taxpayers? Everyone in the state benefits from
aviation system, whether or not they actually fly. Deliveries
of goods and services, medical care and supplies, mail delivery
and other everyday needs are all dependent on a viable air
transportation system.
Turning to airport funding. Alaska relies heavily on FAA
funding through the Airport Improvement Program to develop our
airports. As you've heard already this morning from I think
every other panel member, the Administration's request for the
program falls short of meeting Alaska's needs. The President's
Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposes to fund AIP at $2.7 billion,
nearly a billion dollars less than its authorized level. Due to
the specific provisions of the authorizing statute for the AIP
Program, the proposed level of funding would result in Alaska
losing over $23 million this next year. Rural airports most
impacted by these formulas are also least able to draw from
other resources to absorb these cuts.
Fortunately, the House of Representatives rejected this
proposal and voted to fund AIP at its authorized level of $3.7
billion last month. The stakes are high for Alaska's pilots,
and this is one of AOPA's top priorities in 2006. We urge you
to fund the Airport Improvement Program at $3.7 billion.
The Capstone Program. You've already heard this morning
about the safety benefits of the Capstone Program. Together
both ADS-B and the WAAS elements of the Program are bringing
Alaska up to par with the Nation in terms of aviation
infrastructure while at the same time generating data to help
develop the future of our nation's air traffic control system.
I'd like to add that both programs appear to be much lower
cost to install and maintain than some of the current
technology. We strongly encourage the FAA to move forward and
aggressively deploy the ground infrastructure necessary to
provide statewide coverage of ADS-B and WAAS routes and
approaches. For this program to continue its record of success
in improving safety, the FAA should also support industry
efforts in Alaska to develop a financial assistance program to
help aircraft owners voluntarily install the equipment needed
to realize the full benefits of this program. Without
affordable avionics, Capstone and its associated nationwide
implementation will be hampered, or will fail to reach their
full potential.
I'd like to briefly touch on two weather related programs
that are also improving aviation safety in Alaska. The FAA
Weather Camera Program, which you've already heard about this
morning, has certainly become an invaluable source of weather
information to general aviation pilots. Observations recorded
every 10 minutes are made available to the public over the
Internet. As a frequent user of the Camera Program, I can tell
you that being able to look at weather conditions firsthand
really helps make an informed decision. And it also helps
overcome many of the shortcomings of the unattended automated
weather stations. We need to continue to expand this network
and to improve the user interface for this beneficial service.
I'd also like to mention the National Weather Service
efforts with regard to aviation. They operate an aviation
weather website that delivers weather products, often in
graphical form, directly to pilots. When I use this site I can
also get access to the most current weather satellite and
NextRad weather radar data. Ironically it's the only
operational way that pilots can graphically view the pilot
reports that have been collected by the FAA. AOPA encourages
the National Weather Service to continue the development of
their Alaska aviation weather website.
I'd like to turn to Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. One area that
needs much more attention from the FAA is the issue of Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles or UAVs. Potential applications here in Alaska
include military training, fisheries monitoring, pipeline
patrol and forest fire mapping. Rugged terrain and severe
weather conditions make the challenge of mixing UAVs with
manned aircraft worse in Alaska. It's crucial to understand
that aircraft are often funneled into narrow mountain passes or
compressed under cloud layers, meaning that UAVs and manned
aircraft will share limited airspace in close proximity to each
other. While exciting technologically, it is important that
UAVs don't become a hazard to existing airspace users.
AOPA believes that temporary flight restrictions for UAV
operations are not appropriate and that the FAA needs to fully
explore the alternatives available to allow Federal agencies to
meet their operational needs without impacting general
aviation. Alaska's dependence on aviation as a form of basic
transportation magnifies the inconvenience of airspace
restrictions into a fundamental question of access.
Military use of UAV, is also a concern. We have been told
that the Army plans to use unmanned aircraft as part of their
training for ground troops near Fort Greely. Where other
military UAVs primarily use existing restricted airspace, the
Army has stated that it will not ask for restricted airspace
for this facility. It is essential that general aviation not be
excluded from additional airspace in this area.
When I talk with other pilots they express concern about
running into these other aircraft or being blocked by TFRs. The
FAA must develop standards to certify UAVs to the same level of
safety as piloted aircraft. Failure to do so could further
isolate Alaskan residents from the basic necessities needed to
survive.
Military airspace. The military shares vast amounts of
airspace with civilian users in Alaska in the form of Military
Operation Areas. These MOAs are used for military training
activities both on a routine basis and for major flying
exercises. The civil community has cooperated with the military
in Alaska to develop these areas, respectful of both civil and
military needs. A major factor contributing to the success is a
service supported by the military called the Special Use
Airspace Information Service. This service allows civil users
to determine the current and near term status of the MOAs in
restricted areas, greatly improving the situational awareness
and therefore aviation safety for all users of the airspace.
This system may need to be expanded to meet the growing needs
of the Air Force and the Army as they ramp up their training
activities in Alaska.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to bring
several of these important issues that affect AOPA members to
your attention. Under your leadership, field hearings in Alaska
have become an annual event that serves to highlight our
state's unique environment to your colleagues. We appreciate
this opportunity and your support for aviation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom George, Alaska Regional Representative,
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to be here today to
discuss aviation issues in Alaska. My name is Tom George, and I serve
as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association's (AOPA) Regional
Representative for Alaska. AOPA represents more than 408,000 pilots and
aircraft owners--more than two-thirds of all active pilots in the
United States, including over 4,200 members in Alaska.
Alaska, more than any other state, relies on general aviation as a
major component of its transportation system. That is why some of the
aviation funding proposals being debated back in Washington, D.C. would
have a profound negative impact on Alaska's residents. I'd like to
share AOPA's concerns in regards to this issue, highlight the
initiatives that are improving aviation safety in the state, and
outline the areas needing more attention.
Protect the National Aviation System--Preserving the World's Safest,
Most Efficient Aviation System
For the past year, debate over how to fund the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and its associated programs has been underway. The
airlines and the FAA are advocating to replace aviation taxes with a
user fee system, including taking the air traffic control system out
from under the management oversight and budgetary control of the
Congress. But many of us in Alaska are questioning why Washington would
totally change the effective mechanism that currently funds the safest,
most efficient aviation system in the world. Without Congress acting as
the FAA's Board of Directors, Alaska's needs will likely be
shortchanged.
The FAA claims the Aviation Trust Fund is insufficient and provides
funding in a manner that is unpredictable. But the fact of the matter
is, with ticket prices and the number of passengers increasing, more
money is going into the Trust Fund than ever. Alaska is so reliant on
aviation and it plays such an important role in the economic backbone
of the state, isn't it appropriate that 25 percent of the FAA's costs
be funded by the general taxpayers? Everyone in the state benefits from
the aviation system, whether or not they actually fly. Everyday
deliveries of goods and services, medical services and supplies, mail
delivery and other everyday needs are all dependent on a viable air
transportation system.
Airport Funding--Essential to Alaska's Transportation System
Congress has been particularly mindful of Alaska's reliance on
aviation transportation through its strong support of the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). AIP grants provide much needed funding for
airport development projects such as airfield capital improvements and
repairs, navigational aids, airfield lighting, land acquisition, and
planning studies.
But as this Committee is well aware, the Administration's request
for this vital program has many AOPA members, especially those of us in
Alaska, alarmed. The President's FY07 budget proposes to fund AIP at
$2.7 billion--nearly a billion dollars less than its authorized level.
And the story gets worse. The current authorizing statute for AIP
contains several special rules that are triggered only when AIP is
funded at $3.2 billion or higher. One of those special rules creates a
direct entitlement program for general aviation airports. While the
$150,000 annual nonprimary airport grant may not sound like much money
in Washington, D.C., it adds up for Alaska's aviation system. This
year, under the nonprimary entitlement program, 159 Alaskan airports
are entitled to $22,938,653. Another rule triggered by this funding
level doubles the amount of special funding Alaska receives, known as
the ``Supplemental Apportionment for Alaska.'' This year, Alaska will
receive $21,345,114 through this supplemental apportionment.
If AIP is funded below $3.2 billion, Alaska will lose over $23
million in AIP funding--making it one of the top five states most
severely impacted by this cut. Aviation is too important to Alaska to
jeopardize our economy by allowing these cuts to be enacted.
Fortunately, the House of Representatives rejected this short-
sighted proposal, and voted to fund AIP at its authorized level of $3.7
billion last month. The stakes are high for Alaska's pilots, and this
is one of AOPA's top priorities for 2006--we urge you to fund the
Airport Improvement Program at $3.7 billion.
Improving Safety--Leading the Way for Aviation Technology With Capstone
Program
Another top priority is fully realizing the safety benefits from
the Capstone Program. Documented studies show a 47 percent reduction in
accidents for general aviation aircraft using this new technology here
in Alaska. The FAA partnered with the aviation community in Southwest
Alaska to operationally demonstrate Automatic Direct Broadcast-
Surveillance or ADS-B. General aviation pilots in Alaska have proven
its viability, and it is one of the building blocks of the FAA's Next
Generation Air Transportation System. This new data link technology
provides a greater situational awareness to pilots and air traffic
control, increasing safety in the sky and for the general public on the
ground.
A second phase of the program, still in deployment, is enhancing
the Global Positioning Satellite System (GPS) with the Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS) in Southeast Alaska. This will provide
customized air traffic routes and approaches to better navigate the
fjord-like terrain of the region. Since it does not need ground based
navigation stations, these routes are easily adapted to the sea-level
channels, and provide much lower minimum enroute altitudes. This is
especially important for general aviation aircraft that are unable to
handle icing at higher elevations.
To put it simply, the Capstone Program is bringing Alaska up to par
with the Nation in terms of aviation infrastructure, and generating
data to help develop the future of our nation's air traffic control
system. These technologies have clearly shown the potential to increase
aviation safety and access to rural Alaskan communities, many of which
are still limited to daytime only visual operations (VFR). We strongly
encourage the FAA to move forward aggressively to deploy the ground
infrastructure necessary to provide statewide coverage for ADS-B and
WAAS routes and approaches. For this program to continue its record of
success in improving safety, the FAA should also support industry
efforts in Alaska to develop a financial assistance program to help
aircraft owners voluntarily install the equipment needed to realize the
full benefits of this program. Without affordable avionics, Capstone
and its associated nationwide implementation will be hampered, or fail
to reach its full potential.
Weather Reporting Programs--Another Important Tool for Improving
Safety
Very quickly, I'd like to mention two weather-reporting programs
that are also enhancing aviation safety in Alaska. The FAA Weather
Camera Program is rapidly becoming a valuable source of weather
information to general and commercial aviation pilots. Observations are
recorded every ten minutes, uploaded onto the Internet, and made
available to the public. This allows pilots to look at weather
conditions firsthand before making operational decisions, overcoming
many of the shortcomings of the unattended automated weather stations.
The National Weather Service's Alaska aviation weather website is
filling a vital role in delivering weather products, often in graphic
form, directly to pilots. The same site provides access to the most
current weather satellite and NextRad weather data. Ironically, it is
the only way that pilots can graphically view the pilot reports
collected by the FAA. These observations, made by the pilots as they
fly, bridge the huge gaps in data between ground reporting stations.
AOPA also encourages the National Weather Service to continue the
development of their Alaska aviation weather website.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) Must Be Implemented Carefully and
Without Negative Impacts on General Aviation
One area needing much more attention from the FAA is the issue of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Potential UAV applications in Alaska
include military training, fisheries monitoring, pipeline patrol, and
forest fire mapping. Rugged terrain and severe weather conditions make
the challenge of mixing UAVs with manned aircraft worse in Alaska. It's
crucial to understand that aircraft are often funneled into narrow
mountain passes or compressed under cloud layers, meaning that UAVs and
manned aircraft will share limited airspace in close proximity to each
other. While exciting technologically, it is important that UAVs don't
become a hazard to the existing airspace users.
AOPA believes that ``temporary'' flight restrictions (TFRs) for UAV
operations are not appropriate and the FAA needs to fully explore the
alternatives available to allow Federal agencies to meet their
operational needs without impacting general aviation. Alaska's
dependence on aviation as a form of basic transportation magnifies the
inconvenience of airspace restrictions into a fundamental question of
access.
Military use of UAVs is also a concern, and the Army plans to use
unmanned aircraft as part of their training for ground troops near Ft.
Greely. Where other military UAVs primarily use existing restricted
airspace, the Army has stated that it will not ask for restricted
airspace for this facility. It is essential that general aviation not
be excluded from additional airspace in this area.
AOPA recently surveyed its members on the issue of UAV operations.
The overwhelming majority rejected the notion of flight restrictions,
preferring that the FAA certify unmanned aircraft for operations in the
Nation's airspace. The FAA must develop standards to certify UAVs to
the same level of safety as piloted aircraft. Failure to do so could
further isolate Alaska residents from the basic necessities needed to
survive. In addition, pilots have safety concerns that must be
addressed by the FAA before UAV operations should be considered. Some
of these are technical and some are regulatory including:
The inability of UAVs to see and avoid manned aircraft;
The inability of UAVs to immediately respond to ATC
instructions;
The absence of testing and demonstrations that UAVs can
operate safely in the same airspace as manned aircraft; and
The need to certify UAVs to the same level of safety as
manned aircraft.
Military Airspace--Expansion Requires the DOD to Share More
Information With Pilots
The military shares vast amounts of airspace with civil aviation
users in Alaska in the form of Military Operations Areas (MOAs). These
MOA's are used for military training activities, both on a routine
basis and for major flying exercises. The civil community has
cooperated with the military in Alaska to develop these areas,
respectful of both civil and military needs. A major factor
contributing to this success is a service supported by the military
called the Special Use Airspace Information Service (SUAIS). This
service, formally defined in a 1997 Record of Decision that established
the airspace complex, allows civil users to determine the current and
near-term status of the MOAs and restricted areas, greatly improving
the situational awareness and therefore aviation safety for all users
of the airspace. This system may need to be expanded to meet the
growing needs of the Air Force and the Army as they ramp up their
training activities in Alaska.
Congress Should Prevent Premature Decommissioning of LORAN
General aviation pilots heavily rely on the Global Positioning
System (GPS) for electronic navigation. In the case of unexpected GPS
outages, pilots generally rely on ground based navigation aids such as
Very High Frequency Omni Range (VOR). This is a suitable solution for
now. However, VOR is generally believed to be an unsuitable backup for
advanced GPS positioning and timing applications, such as ADS-B. Except
for VOR, virtually all backup options are difficult for general
aviation pilots to utilize, due to excessive cost or technological
immaturity.
Some believe that the Long Range Navigation (LORAN) system is a
viable GPS backup for aviation users. Unfortunately, the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) U.S. Coast Guard has proposed to decommission
LORAN as early as this September. Given the apparent need for an
affordable, robust GPS backup that has similar performance, and
supports the positioning and timing needs of aviation, the
decommissioning of LORAN by the DHS is premature. Once gone, LORAN will
no longer be a backup option, and any other suitable alternative would
likely be more costly, take longer to implement, and would be the
financial responsibility of the FAA exclusively. Congress should
prevent LORAN decommissioning until the FAA can conclusively validate
LORAN performance, and verify LORAN is a suitable backup to GPS. The
FAA should also provide Congress with an assessment of the viability of
affordable LORAN receivers that can be certified for general aviation.
AOPA firmly believes that consultation with aviation users should be
conducted before decommissioning LORAN.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to bring several of
these important issues that affect AOPA members to your attention.
Under your leadership, field hearings in Alaska have become an annual
event that serves to highlight our state's unique environment to your
colleagues. As you well know, those of us that call Alaska home share a
passion--one that is not easily understood by those in the lower 48--
for this place, so we truly appreciate your desire to represent us in
the fervent manner that reflects who we are.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I do appreciate all of
you for being with us today. Now, John, you mentioned the
monies were already appropriated in the past. Are any of those
amounts available for 2007? Are they carrying over any money?
Mr. Torgerson. I believe we are, Senator. I don't know the
amount but some of our funding lapses over fiscal years. If
that's what you're referring to.
The Chairman. I don't remember whether we made those 2 year
or no-year appropriations. We made money available in the past
for the state's priorities. You indicated that you had some
carryover moneys as I understand it. I wondered have you
checked to see if those are possible to carry over to Fiscal
Year 2007?
Mr. Torgerson. For the rural airport lighting system this
is the last year of that appropriation for that total of $38
million so that'll be--that's currently being allocated and
used now.
The Chairman. I know it's been made available to you but
have you used it?
Mr. Torgerson. No, sir, we're currently in the construction
and bidding process for a lot of that money now.
The Chairman. Can you tell me how much you have available
for 2007?
Mr. Torgerson. I'm looking back at my Program Manager. I
don't know that number, Senator, but I'll----
The Chairman. It's going to be a very touchy amount this
year because of the increased demand for those moneys and we
have a little bit of argument with the Administration over how
much those TSA fees should be. So I would like to know how much
is available. It might reduce the amount that we'd have to ask
for for 2007 which would be a lot of help.
Mr. Torgerson. I will get that number to you, Senator.
The Chairman. Good. Bob, it seems to me what you were
saying, we need funding, funding, funding in so many programs
we've started now. What is your feeling about the situation
that we face in terms of the kind of technological improvements
needed? This new weather program, how essential will that be to
your operations?
Mr. Hajdukovich. We rely on the weather camera system
itself in our dispatch department for 135 and 121 operations.
Many times an element of the AWOS system will be out of service
and we can look at the camera system to give us a real live
view of what's happening out there. So we heavily support the
weather camera system. I can't really speak to the kiosk
setting because we're so dynamic in the company, you know,
dispatching real time we don't--we would probably not make it
to a kiosk from the company standpoint. But from the private
pilot standpoint, I would think that would have value placed in
key locations in the state.
The Chairman. You use other systems than this for your
operation on a commercial basis?
Mr. Hajdukovich. We use the flight tracking system that
marries the ADS-B targets into the Air Traffic Control System
and with the radar environment to track our aircraft in the
system. We also use the Iridium phone to have pilots be able to
communicate back to dispatch. You know, one of the things that
I think that I focused on over the last several years is--it's
the decision to launch, it's not so much that decision en
route. Once you've already committed to en route you've already
gone airborne, you have a level of commitment to get to your
destination. And so I think the more that we can communicate,
for example a float plane pilot setting down on a lake and
being able to contact whoever's going to be looking for him on
the other end or his--or the wife or the husband that's going
to be trying to track you. So the two-way communication, I
think, is going to be critical to safety in Alaska and that
comes through Iridium, and the decision to launch by giving the
information through systems like the weather camera system.
The Chairman. John Torgerson mentioned some of the problems
with the lighting program. Has this lighting program enhanced
your operations? I noticed it's all VFR clearance. You go in
with IFR, don't you?
Mr. Hajdukovich. Yes.
The Chairman. Has this lighting program helped your
situation at all with regard to commercial aviation into those
fields?
Mr. Hajdukovich. Absolutely. There's--we go into some of
the larger communities or larger runways so we didn't see a lot
of the lighting problems. But we--for example, Stevens Village,
we grew up serving that community and it was very difficult
landing, flare pots and getting people to line their
snowmobiles up and that--those days are gone. What's replaced
getting me up in the middle of the night at 3 in the morning to
catch an emergency medevac is we have a more developed medevac
system in the state. Those systems rely on risk assessment
programs and want to be a part of all these programs. And so
what's critical is we have, you know, real air ambulance
programs that are out there saying, OK, well, we want to do it
by the numbers and so we need the airport lighting. So they
have been very critical.
The Chairman. You heard the comments of Tom George about
UAVs. Do you have any serious question about the use of UAVs?
You operate primarily out of Fairbanks, don't you?
Mr. Hajdukovich. Yes. And I think in the Big Delta area we
don't have any flight routes over that area but we can get
vectored quite often around MOAs and sometimes I guestion why
the military can't get the vectors themselves. We're the ones
paying for the gas real time. And so that's a bit of a
frustration but the Unmanned Military Vehicles or the UAVs, in
Big Delta I could see a problem because that's a big path that
private aircraft take. There's very little commercial activity
out that direction but a tremendous amount of private activity.
The Chairman. Well, there's a substantial projection of
increased use of UAVs by Federal agencies here, the Coast Guard
as well as the Army. Have you had any meetings with them? Have
there been any sessions with general and commercial aviation on
the use of those new Unmanned Vehicles?
Mr. Hajdukovich. You know, as I understand it, the military
committee kind of reinvents itself every year and I know
they're going through that again in the Fairbanks area and I'm
not as involved with that as my father-in-law, Richard Wien,
has been so I think he would have an opinion on that. But I
know that's going to be a major issue and I would agree with
Tom that it's very significant to the private side as well as
commercial depending on where they go.
The Chairman. Well, I wear another hat in terms of defense
appropriations and I can tell you there is a substantial
increase coming in the use of UAVs by the military in Alaska.
And I think we should reconvene those coordinating committees.
They worked it out very well in terms of the problems of the
sonic booms. I think we could find a way to coordinate that.
And I look forward to working with you on that. Mort, I too am
frustrated that we did not get the decision out of the
Department of Homeland Security that was committed to us and
when I go back we will take up the comments you've made. I am
also disturbed about your report concerning the failure to give
us the certification for the international passengers that are
just coming off. They must offload because of another
regulation, because the planes are being refueled, right?
Mr. Plumb. As I mentioned, we have--of the 18 international
passenger flights, from only 4 are passengers allowed off. The
rest of those must require passengers to stay on the aircraft
while it is on the ground, mainly Cathay. So while you could
hypothesize there's a threat when these aircraft land or
takeoff, for 20 years there has not been a threat. And these
airplanes still land and take off. It's just these people
simply cannot get off the aircraft. And we lose a very good
intelligence source as it stands now. We have the advance
passenger manifest so we know who is on the airplane. If we let
these people off and we check their documents, get their
thumbprint and take their picture and put them back on, we're
way ahead of the game. Many times CBP pulls people off this
airplane and deports them back. Absent the ability to get these
people to stop here, these people will simply find other means
and will overfly us and go to Canada or possibly Mexico and be
60 miles from our border. So I think it's a win, win situation.
It's a win for our economy. It's a win for our security if we
can work through these issues and let these people off.
The main problem is when passengers from China travel from
Hong Kong to Toronto and they buy a ticket, they don't have the
expectation of stopping in the United States because China is a
visa country. So if they cannot get these people to buy tickets
on that airplane, Cathay is simply going to pull 14 flights out
and overfly us to Toronto which is what Continental does right
now. So, clearly the logic escapes me.
You could possibly hypothesize a scenario where someone
could possibly get through, but I think the reality of that is
very remote. We've had these operations for 20 years on ITIs
and travel--International and travel without visa waiver and
we've never had anyone that has gotten out of the secure area.
So, again, I think that this is something that there's been
some foot dragging on. I think there's some stretched
interpretation of things. We all know how horrific it was after
9/11 and the people that I have spoken to, that doesn't mean
that there are others that have an opinion--don't have an
opinion. But the Congressional intent did not perceive the way
they are implementing the current regulations. And I guess,
short of DHS making a policy decision, it will have to be fixed
legislatively.
The Chairman. Is this basically TSA that you're dealing
with?
Mr. Plumb. It is the Department of Homeland Security. And
it gets a little confusing in that it is basically a CBP, a
Customs and Border Protection, regulation that they are looking
at. But if they find their way through that, there's a position
within the Transportation Security Agency that claims that
these people would have to be re-screened or screened by U.S.
officials. The thing that's interesting at Vancouver and
Toronto, we have an issue called pre-clearance. We have people
that are screened by Canadian officials and then they walk a
distance and their papers are checked and that gives them
entrance into this country. They board an airplane. They go to
Seattle. From there they go to Los Angeles, Las Vegas, New
York. They enter our system. But the same Canadian screening at
Whitehorse does not apply. We have yet to be informed as to why
someone that is screened in Canada by Canadian officials and
someone that is screened in Whitehorse by Canadian officials is
different. Furthermore, the only thing that is different, here
at Anchorage, they walk a distance down in Vancouver and they
talk to CBP officials. Here, the first person they see when
they walk off the airplane is a CBP official. So, again, the
logic escapes me.
The Chairman. We'll take a good look at it when we get back
and I'll get in touch with you. I'll instruct the staff to work
on that particularly because we did have a commitment on that.
And I'm sad to hear that it's not been kept. Mr. George, these
are tough times for us in terms of the FAA budget. And it seems
that you're the first person I've heard that supports an
increased TSA fee. Is that what you said?
Mr. George. An increased TSA--no. A continued general fund
appropriation to support the FAA, in addition to just the
continued tax structure that's there today.
The Chairman. I see. Well, I wish I could do that. The
budget's a little tight right now to do that. In terms of AOPA,
are you involved in the UAV question also?
Mr. George. Yes, and to the best of my knowledge there's
been one meeting that NOAA and Homeland Security held here in
Alaska in general to talk about UAVs. I wasn't able to
personally attend that meeting but thanks to help from the
Alaska Airman's Association, we did have a general aviation
representative there. And it sounds like, yes, there are very
ambitious plans, not just on the part of the military but other
agencies interested in, you know, pipeline patrol, Fish and
Game, surveys as well as fisheries monitoring. And again,
that's where our concerns come up. We've got to find a way to
do that, that doesn't impact the rest of the aviation
community.
The Chairman. What do you think about the comments that Ms.
Blakey made about these new facilities such as this weather
kiosk and things like that. Are these going to be acceptable to
your people, the Kiosk Program that's going to start at Lake
Hood for instance?
Mr. George. Well, we're very interested to look at it. And
actually, I haven't yet had a chance to look at this. I think
it's just being rolled out. The weather camera program
definitely is crucial to us. And I think finding other ways to
get that information out is important. A lot of issues have to
be addressed like, where in the rural airports kiosks like this
would be located, knowing that a lot of the airports in Alaska
actually have no infrastructure on the ground, including even a
warm place to wait for weather conditions to improve. I think
taking any step with a couple of these kiosks is a good idea.
I'm hoping if it's not included today, the weather service
website can be included with it. And we'll certainly work with
the FAA to figure out what makes sense in terms of deployment
to extend the reach to the people on the other end of their
flight so to speak.
The Chairman. As I understand it, this is going to be
placed at Lake Hood soon, right? I'd be very much interested in
the reaction of general aviation to this because that's really
basically what it's for. And we're going to have to have some
user statistics in order to get the funds to expand this
throughout the state. That will be another substantial expense,
I think, before we're through. So I would urge you to use your
facilities at AOPA to get the information out about this new
system and to see if we can get some user reaction to it. The
unique part of it is that you have the commercial weather
channel as well as the FAA side-by-side and, as I understand
it, you can change your flight plan on what you see right
there, is that right? You'll be able to contact and change the
flight plan based upon what you picked up on this machine. So,
I think we need feedback. I've just been given a note, Mort,
that our general counsel is working with you on TWOV, and the
Department of Homeland Security is not being helpful in terms
of this. We're going to have to find out why. They keep,
apparently, vetoing the final decision even though the
Secretary committed to us he would make that decision. So we'll
take that up when we get back. I don't know if any of the FAA
people have any questions about this panel. I don't have any
further questions. I do thank you very much for coming. We'll
review your statement, Mort, it's a good one and I'll get it
faxed back to Ken today, so that by the time we get back to
work next Monday, we'll have some contacts ready to make with
the Department to see what we can do to get them off the dime
as far as that's concerned.
Mr. Plumb. Thank you.
The Chairman. That international situation reminds me of
right after 9/11 when all the planes went somewhere else
because they didn't know what was going to happen if they
landed here. So we will work on it and we'll help as much as we
can. Thank you, Bob, for coming.
Mr. Hajdukovich. Thank you.
The Chairman. Best to your father-in-law. Thank you, John,
appreciate it very much.
Mr. Torgerson. Thank you.
The Chairman. That will terminate the hearing here. We look
forward to following up on some of these issues when we have
further hearings of the Commerce Committee in Washington. Thank
you very much.
[Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]