ELIMINATION OF AMTRAK

Let me run a quick question by you before you begin because we have been in the throes of Amtrak, and we are concerned, we realize that you are not responsible for the administration proposal to close down Amtrak, but we understand that the impact on the Northeast corridor will be great. There are 17,500 passengers a day on Amtrak. They will have to either fly or crowd the overcrowded highways even more. How could the FAA handle 17,500 additional daily passengers in that crowded corridor?

Mr. ENGEN. You want an answer now, Mr. Chairman?

Senator ANDREWS. Yes; sure. I thought I would get it right up in front so everyone will know where we are coming from.

Mr. ENGEN. With great difficulty.

Senator ANDREWS. With great difficulty and considerable additional expense, Mr. Administrator?

Mr. ENGEN. Yes, sir; you know, I did some quick thumbnail sketches since I heard your speech given at our Aviation Forecast Seminar, which I appreciated very, very much. You tickled my fancy when you threw that out as a problem.

From just a thumbnail, Mr. Chairman, roughly speaking in the United States there are about 310 million passengers in the air in any given year. There are about 20 million passengers on Amtrak.

Now, in the Eastern corridor, which we are really talking about right now that high-density corridor-there are about 9 million aviation passengers each year going to and from New York, Washington, this area, and about 11 million paying Amtrak passengers. I think we could accommodate with the empty seats that are available some 5 million of those 11 million, and that would leave a delta of about 6 million.

Senator ANDREWS. And that would go to 100 percent capacity. The fit would have to be absolute and right on target.

Mr. ENGEN. It would.

Senator ANDREWS. But then you would have 6 million that you would not know where to put.

Mr. ENGEN. Yes, sir; but I would hasten to add that in my humble opinion, although I am not a rail expert, given that that is the most productive and paying route for Amtrak, I would hope that passenger service would continue to be provided by the private sector, because it is surely the moneymaker on the line with that many people traveling back and forth.

Senator ANDREWS. And that, of course, is a question we have got to have resolved from the railroad types. But the point is, in order to handle those additional millions of passengers in that Northeast corridor, you have to make considerable extra investment in controllers, in airports, additional runways, and all of those other facilities, and it would be extremely difficult to get them on line soon enough to accommodate it.

Isn't that true?

Mr. ENGEN. It comes down to airports. Yes, sir; the bottom line is airports.

Senator ANDREWS. And that would be fairly costly.

Mr. ENGEN. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDREWS. That amount of travel, 17,500 daily, is about 15 percent or so the capacity of National, isn't it?

INCREASED AIR SERVICE

Mr. ENGEN. About. Yes, sir.

I come back to my point, if I could, because I think it is a good question. It is a problemmatical one, though, from the standpoint that it is the best paying rail route in the United States, and it would seem to me that private sector service would continue to be provided.

Senator ANDREWS. Well, that is what we would hope, but also what we want to do is make sure that we know what the alternatives are.

Mr. Claytor suggested that there would have to be a minimum of 38 additional takeoffs and landings out of National, and in what you just said that would be an impossibility without displacing air traffic to some other city.

Mr. ENGEN. We would like to use Dulles to a greater advantage. Yes, sir.

Senator ANDREWS. Thank you. And my apologies for getting out of order, but the committee feels that is quite a priority and we wanted for the people that were here, to make sure that they realized that we are focusing on that, trying to know just exactly what the dollar values are on both sides of the equation.

We appreciate your candid answer and your accurate answer.

PREPARED STATEMENT

Again, Mr. Engen, you have a statement. It is an excellent one. We would be glad to assure that it is in the record in its totality. We would like to have you summarize it or give it in whatever way you feel most effective.

[The statement follows:]

STATEMENT OF DONALD D. ENGEN

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present the FAA's budget requests for FY 1986. We have proposed resource levels that will permit FAA to continue the modernization and improvement as well as the operation and maintenance of the National Airspace System. Our goal is to provide an airport and airway system responsive to all

users.

At the same time, the FAA will do its part to reduce the Federal deficit and to restrain the growth and cost of Government. This budget requests about $200 million less in budget authority than was appropriated in FY 1985. About 85 percent of it will be financed from user taxes paid by those who benefit from aviation. Before I talk about more of the FY 1986 request, I want to look back a bit. Our accomplishments this past year have been impressive. The credit for this belongs to the many fine employees at FAA, to the

cooperation of the aviation community, and to you for the resources you provided.

I'd like to give you the highlights of our record:

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL

We resumed handling 1981 levels of traffic in April 1984. Since then, we have controlled traffic at significantly higher levels. Last summer, I made a commitment that FAA would have about 14,300 in the controller work force by now. We have met that commitment. As expected, many of these new controllers still require additional on-the-job training to attain full performance level, and we are proceeding with that essential professional development.

I am further strengthening the operation of the air traffic control system by centralizing operational control in Washington. I have given line authority to the Associate Administrator for Air Traffic for control of daily operations; for air traffic standards and procedures, flow control, airspace management, system evaluation, policy and program direction, separation, and flight assistance to aircraft. These management changes will guarantee standardization throughout the system and will help move our procedures into the 21st century.

THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM PLAN

There has been considerable activity implementing the NAS Plan during the past year. Virtually every element of the Plan is underway. Let me bring you up to date with some highlights:

Design competition for HOST mainframe computer between IBM and Sperry has been completed. We will determine which company can best produce the system and expect to award a contract this

summer.

Design competition contracts for the Advanced Automation System (AAS) were awarded to IBM and Hughes inAugust 1984. Both contractors are progressing toward Critical Design Review, scheduled for November 1986.

Westinghouse is under contract to provide new airport surveillance radars, and was awarded a contract in October for 137 Mode S radar beacon ground stations.

Installation of Direct Access Radar Channel (DARC) enhancements at FAA Technical Center began in May 1984.

Specifications for the Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) Program were completed and an RPM for design competition went out in February. The objective is to replace existing systems in centers with an integrated voice communications system.

The Systems Engineering Integration (SEI) contractor completed an audit of the NAS Plan that confirmed its objectives and feasibility. The SEI contractor provides systems engineering, integration of systems, and program management toward implementation of the NAS Plan.

The MLS program is well underway with a contract to purchase 172 systems and an option to purchase 36 additional systems. The first delivery is slated for the fall of 1986.

As directed by the Congress, the FAA has recently completed its annual update of the NAS Plan. We will provide copies to this committee after final editorial work. This third edition of the Plan reaffirms the purpose of earlier editions: improved safety, capacity, productivity and economy through higher levels of automation, application of new technologies, and consolidation of facilities.

FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION AND PRIVATIZATION

The Flight Service Station (FSS) modernization program has three components: establishment of 61 new facilities, consolidation of 311 facilities into these new 61, and automation of the 61 new facilities with Model 1 and Model 2 systems.

The consolidation of existing facilities provides equal or better level of service to users with less cost to the taxpayer. Savings, as well as significant cost avoidance, can be achieved through consolidation independent of any automation. Existing facilities are equipped with Leased Service A equipment, and initially the consolidated facilities will use that same equipment until the installation of Model 1 automation.

We have identified 57 of the 61 sites. Of the 57 identified, one has been reopened for negotiation due to an OIG audit recommendation, and another is being reevaluated following a GAO review recommendation. The remaining four will be selected by September 30, 1985. I have slowed the rate of consolidations from last year's plan. Concerns voiced by the aviation community and the Congress, and consideration for our employees motivated this decision. I want to assure the best possible continuous service for the users. My modified plans for consolidation anticipate 86 consolidations in the next three years instead of 104 as originally stated. Closures and consolidations have been limited to those required to support transition to the new facilities. Having received Congressional approval in January for some consolidations, we are eager to proceed at a manageable, measured rate.

The first automated system was delivered and installed at the FAA's Technical Center in December 1984. We had experienced some delays with the Model 1 software acquisition which caused about a six-month slippage in the automation program from what we expected when we came before this Committee last spring. The system will undergo extensive testing at the Technical Center through October. We will begin to deliver to field facilities in May 1985. Model 1 will be operating in three Automated Flight Service Stations by the end of calendar year 1985, and in 37 AFSS by November 1986.

We have not requested any additional capital funds for flight service station activities in FY 1986, and we are studying the feasibility of the private sector performing some of the flight service station functions. In the meantime, we will continue planned consolidation and automation with funds already appropriated.

AIRPORT CAPACITY

The last of the capacity controlled airports was released from slot allocation requirements on April 1, 1984, and four airports (National, LaGuardia, Kennedy, and O'Hare) reverted to the 1969 High Density Traffic Airport rule. Air traffic activity rose sharply; congestion at some major airports peaked last summer, and delays became a problem. With our support, the air carriers met and agreed in September to adjust their schedules in order to ease the crunch at particular hours at the busy airports. The new schedules were effective on November 1; by the end of the month, delays were reduced 55 percent compared to October. Actions taken by the FAA and the users have reduced delays and should continue to keep them manageable; therefore, the September agreement was not continued after April 1, 1985.

The general aviation community has also cooperated closely with us to reduce excessive demands on some airports. Together we developed the FASST program (that is, Fly Around Saturated Sectors and Terminals) to improve the efficiency of traffic flow. The general aviation community agreed to the voluntary filing of flight plans four hours in advance at the six most congested airports. General aviation aviators used the FAA airport reservation office to coordinate arrivals and departures at Atlanta, Denver, and Newark Airports which are not included under the High Density rule. We are resectoring to balance traffic loads and prevent overload. The En Route Spacing Program (ESP) - new this year is providing a look at en route sectors to determine when bunching will occur in order to apply appropriate spacing procedures. This improves surveillance of heavy en route flow and assures manipulation where necessary to "smooth out" flow.

We will continue to work with our associates in the airline industry to minimize delays. Our statistics show that 60 percent of delays are weather related. Approximately 18 percent are "airport capacity" problems or what I call "concrete problems. Where airports have no room for expansion, and where traffic increases, delay problems will increase.