Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

air-ground radio communications equipment and old eletromechanical teletypewriter and telewriter equipment at flight service stations with new state-of-the-art solid-state equipment. Additionally, we continue to modernize and improve flight service stations where required for environmental improvements, employee safety and health, and to keep the facilities in good working condition.

SENATOR BYRD: On another subject related to the automated flight service stations, it is my understanding that the software supporting the first three of the consolidated flight service stations has been delayed again and again. Your testimony before this subcommittee last January indicates that the software should be ready and the first three flight service stations should be operational next month. Is that time table still on schedule?

ANSWER: As indicated in testimony in January, the first Model I automation system was delivered to the FAA Technical Center in December of 1984. Since that time another system was delivered to the FAA Academy in February. Our plans still call for delivery of the first three field systems (Cleveland, Dayton and Bridgeport) in May with commissioning scheduled for December. We are currently maintaining the schedule presented in January.

SENATOR BYRD: I believe you also told the committee that no penalty clause for delay was written into the contract with the software supplier, isn't that correct?

ANSWER: That is correct, the software contract is a cost plus incentive fee type contract. It has a target fee of 10 percent with a fee floor of 2 percent. Costs above the target cost are shared by the government and the contractor by a 70/30 ratio respectively. The sharing ratio has the effect of reducing the contractor's fee which is presently at the 2 percent floor level.

SENATOR BYRD: What are you doing to insure that the contractor delivers the remainder of the systems on schedule?

ANSWER: Once the Model I equipment passes the formal system testing at E-Systems in early May, the delivery of Model I equipment to field sites is readily supportable. The contractor will stage field site systems on the production floor, conduct factory acceptance testing and package the systems for return to the warehouse. Approximately one Flight Service Data Processing System and 3-4 Automated Flight Service Stations will be delivered from the warehouse each month. Close coordination with the contractor has enabled an installation plan to be developed that can accommodate the delivery sequence and schedule presented in the January hearings. We continue to monitor the production contract very closely with on-site quality control personnel to assure availability of all components.

SENATOR BYRD: The contractor has delayed the delivery of the first system several times as I have already noted, and now you have testified that you are pressing the company to speed up delivery. This would seem to be a situation that places great pressure on the contractor and its workers to deliver a product, perhaps at anycost. What are you doing to insure that the product being delivered meets the stringent standards necessary to protect the safety of airline passengers as well as delivers efficient performance in the consolidated automated flight service stations?

ANSWER: The FAA's activities are oriented to accomplishing testing and installation in an expeditious manner. We are not "speeding up" testing or installations but rather focusing attention on preventing schedule delays. No testing requirements have been deleted. All planned contractor testing and an extensive FAA conducted shakedown will be accomplished to verify automation system compliance and operational system readiness prior to commissioning. A concentration of technical and management resources have been provided to support these activities. Program risk analysis and on-site testing personnel are providing high level management visibility to all activities.

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR HATFIELD

EUGENE AIRPORT

Are any

SENATOR HATFIELD: It is my understanding that FAA is limited by law from allowing airport operators from using more than sixty percent of enplanement funds under the Airport Improvement Trust Fund for terminal construction. Is that correct? It is also my understanding that airport operators can withhold application for the enplanement monies for a period of three years in order to allow them to accrue and then seek the funds in a lump sum payment. Is that a proper understanding? If not, in what respect is it correct? airport operators pursuing such as approach or have any done so in the past? Please provide me with those airports which have chosen this approach. What is FAA's position towards the City of Eugene utilizing this approach under the Airport Improvement Trust Fund for the next three years?

ANSWER: The 60 percent limitation on enplanement funds which can be used for terminal buildings is correct. You are also correct concerning the banking of enplanement funds. A sponsor could accumulate up to three years worth of his apportionments if he wished. Any funds apportioned and not used in three years, however, are lost to a sponsor and become discretionary funds which can be used at any eligible airport. Eighty-five airports chose to carryover unused FY 1984 apportionments into FY 1985. These range from as low as $950 carried over by Albany County, Georgia, to as high as $3.7 million at Pittsburgh International. As for Eugene, our field office will cooperate with Eugene in their plans for use of their apportionments.

FUELING

SENATOR HATFIELD: Under FAA Regulations, Part 139, dealing with safety and certification of airports, air carrier airports are responsible should planes develop any problem after refueling where such refueling is provided by contract operators. However, Congress passed s. 1146, the Aviation Drug Trafficking Control Act, which included a provision directing FAA to adopt an alternative approach to this matter. What has FAA done to implement this legislation? When does FAA intend to promulgate regulations?

ANSWER: Section 139.51(b) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), adopted in 1972, provides general requirements for fueling operations on certificated

airports. The section requires that the certificate holder show that "it (or its tenant), as the fueling agent, has a sufficient number of trained personnel and procedures for safely storing, dispensing, and otherwise handling fuel, lubricants, and oxygen on the airport ...." This rule does not require that airport operators provide extensive, day-to-day control over tenant fuelers. The FAA believes that fueling agents have the fundamental responsibility for providing clean, dry fuel. Further, the pilot in command is ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight, and the air carrier, too, is responsible to ensure that the flight is made safely. Each may be held accountable for fueling safety problems in appropriate cases. Nevertheless, the airport operator has an oversight responsibility to assure that safe airport operations are conducted. This includes general oversight of tenant fuelers to determine that they have the basic personnel and procedures needed to conduct safe operations. It is recognized that not all certificate holders may have the expertise, training, or personnel available to monitor day-to-day tenant fueling operations. That is not required under the current regulation, nor does FAA intend to impose such a detailed monitoring requirement. The FAA does not believe that requiring airports to provide general oversight of fueling activities places an undue burden on them.

The FAA is aware of the concern expressed by airport operators and by the conferees to the Conference Report for the Aviation Drug -Trafficking Control Act regarding the oversight responsibilities of certificated airports over tenant fueling operations. We are also cognizant of the conferees' desire that, to the maximum extent feasible, FAA encourage voluntary industry efforts to address these concerns. In November 1984 the FAA held two meetings with various groups who represent airport managers, fixed base operators (who provide many of the tenant fueling services), pilots, state governments, and others. The major concern was the extent to which certificate holders should be responsible, under the FAR, for tenants' activities, and the complementary question of whether tenant fuelers should be certificated or otherwise directly regulated by the FAA. The meetings also revealed that the industry continues to develop standards and procedures which should reduce fueling safety hazards. The FAA has drafted an NPRM, currently in executive coordination, which deals with these issues.

To regulate tenant fuelers directly would be a major undertaking, requiring the development of standards and procedures for certification and inspection of many fuelers. This would be expensive for both the industry and the FAA. The current industry safety measures and the oversight by airport operators provide a sufficient level of safety at a relatively low cost for all concerned. Through lease

agreements the airports can recover any costs of oversight, just as they can recover any other cost of managing property which they lease out. The FAA believes that at this point, the oversight provided by the airport operators is the least burdensome and most economical means for the industry as a whole to provide an appropriate level of safety.

The FAA does not regulate fuelers at small, uncertificated airports, just as Congress did not empower FAA with the same oversight responsibilities at these airports as was provided for certificated airports under $612 of the Federal Aviation Act. Unlike the certificated airports, such airports do not serve air carrier aircraft with a seating capacity of more than 30 passengers, and hence, the volume of passenger activity is considerably lower than at the certificated airports.

Because of the reduced exposure to the traveling public, the FAA does not consider fueling operations at these low activity airports to constitute a safety problem warranting regulation and the corresponding burden this would involve. The voluntary industry measures mentioned above continue to provide for improvements in the safety at these airports.

VISUAL APPROACH GLIDESLOPE INDICATORS

SENATOR HATFIELD: Why is FAA discontinuing the Airport Improvement Program funding eligibility for the Pulse Light Approach Slope Indicator, an action which seems inconsistent with the need to reduce airport construction costs?

ANSWER: Several years ago, our longstanding policy on visual glideslope indicators was changed to permit Federal funding of any type of system that met minimum operational requirements. This would have led to a proliferation of these approach aids, which I do not believe to be in the best interest of aviation safety. Pilots need to see the same visual presentation at all airports and should not be expected to be familiar with the signal formats of a multitude of different systems. For this reason, I reinstated our earlier policy of funding only one system to promote standardization at U.S. airports.

The Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) was chosen as the U.S. Standard for Federal funding purposes primarily because it is the system that has been adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) as the standard international system for use by fixed-wing aircraft. It is the policy of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), consistent with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, to implement ICAO standards on international airports whenever practicable. To select a system other than the PAPI for use at noninternational airports would not be consistent with the desired goal of standardization.

As to cost, the PLASI and PAPI are very comparable. Also, the PAPI is currently being made by at least six U.S. companies which ensures a high degree of competitiveness and the lowest possible cost.

LIFE CYCLE COSTS

SENATOR HATFIELD: OMB Circular A-102 requires that all Federal bidding specifications are to take into consideration the factor of "life cycle cost." Why does FAA not implement this requirement in the evaluation and approval of bids for Airport Improvement Program funded airport projects and acquisitions ?

ANSWER: OMB Circular A-102 allows Federal grant recipients to specify life cycle costs in their bidding documents as a factor in determining low bid. However, there is no requirement to do so. FAA has issued guidelines to field offices on the use of life cycle cost in contracting under the Airport Improvement Program. These guidelines also are made available to airport sponsors. A major problem to date in the use of life cycle cost procedures for AIP projects has been the lack of verifiable data on manufacturer's or contractor's claims of future costs. Since the contract award would be based in larger part on these costs, they must be fully documented and proveable. So far, this has been a major stumbling block in the use of this procurement tool.

PRECISION APPROACH LANDING AIDS

SENATOR HATFIELD: When does FAA intend to issue its policy regarding the eligibility of airports for either instrument landing systems (ILS) or microwave landing systems (MS)? What will happen to those airports which were previously designated for an ILS? Will those airports be placed in the MLS list and what priority will they be assigned? Has FAA developed a listing of airports that either received ILS's or were to receive ILS's and those airports which are to receive MIS's and their priority? If so, would you provide that information for the record and the projected date those airports will receive these landing systems?

ANSWER: FAA's policy regarding instrument landing systems (ILS), microwave landing systems (MLS) was approved by the Administrator on July 6, 1984 and by the Secretary on October 16, 1984. The policy is as follows:

1. Approve no new ILS establish projects except currently qualified locations that have no precision landing system on the airport or those locations that have both an immediate critical aeronautical need for a precision landing system and where it is economically beneficial to install an ILS. This includes new runways at major hub airports as well as critical training and runway repair requirements {i.e., closed runway is only instrumented runway on airports).

2. Approve upgrading partial system's localizer/outer marker to full ILS at those locations qualified and where such action would complete the only ILS on the airport.

3. Revise the priority of MLS installations in accordance with the networking concept and prioritization scheme cited in the MLS transition plan taking into account user needs.

4. Replace all remaining tube-type ILS components with solid-state components equipment except those locations that will receive an MS prior to 1990.

5. Maintain existing ILS service at international airports until at least 1995.

Airports which meet FAA's criteria will be provided an ILS or MLS in priority and in accordance with the agency's policy and MLS transition plan.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »