Mr. Chairman, that largely brings us to where we are today. We have_made progress, and our efforts will continue. Insofar, as our plans for the future, I have mentioned our development activities concerning Collision Avoidance Systems. Their use should go a long way toward further reducing the possibility of midair collisions, and their implementation can be none too soon. We will, of course, continue to improve upon the automation in our air traffic system as well as other features of the system. I know the Committee will be interested in the contents of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which we intend to issue in December. The impact of the proposal could be significant in expanding upon our capability to promote the safe separation of traffic. This proposal would make several major changes. It would reduce the floor of the continental and Alaska positive control area to 12,500 feet from its present level of 18,000 feet. Within this airspace from 12,500 feet to 18,000 VFR traffic, which would be covered by a new regulatory concept referred to as Controlled Visual Flight, would be required to comply with air traffic clearances and instructions and maintain applicable VFR weather minima. Another key feature of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be to raise ceilings of Terminal Control Areas to 12,500 feet. This would provide additional protection to aircraft entering or departing Terminal Control Areas from uncontrolled aircraft. I should note that the specific airspace configuration of individual Terminal Control Areas would be handled through supplementary rulemaking. As another effort, we are looking to determine if changes may be needed in communication transfer practices used in terminal areas; to see what changes, if any, may be warranted in the application of visual separation; to assess the validity of existing policy and procedures regarding practice approaches; and to identify what the level of pilot knowledge of terminal separation procedures and related responsibilities may be. We also have other projects underway which should provide further assistance in the future. For example, we have development efforts underway to consolidate and prioritize warning system alerts, both audio and visual, in cockpits. The intent would be to provide the pilot with a single system which will place multiple warnings in priority with directions for correction. We plan to issue a report and guidance for standardized cockpit alert and warning systems by September 1980. We are also evaluating the utility of Head-Up Displays in approach and landing operations. This evaluation, which should be completed by March 1980, will establish the safety implications of the use of such devices. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, I am deeply disturbed by the recent tragedy here. The world's best aviation safety investigators are carefully sifting through the facts to determine its cause. We await the results in the hope they may point to a solution that will prevent a similar recurrence. Seldom, though, is there a simple solution to problems we face within our complex air transportation system. Nevertheless, I have concluded that, going beyond the many actions we have in process, there are several actions I can initiate now that should make additional contributions to the future safety of our system. First, I intend to give even greater recognition to the benefits provided our air transportation system by reliever airports and other general aviation airports that siphon general aviation traffic away from air carrier airports. I have determined that by expanding our efforts to establish approach and landing aids at key reliever and general aviation airports we may be able to reduce the mix of general aviation and air carriers at congested airports. The greater availability of such aids will provide alternative training capabilities for general aviation pilots, which will not only serve to reduce such training at major air carrier airports, but will provide greater opportunities for pilot training so they will be able to better function in the national airspace system. Also, these approach and landing aids will increase the utility of these airports by giving them an all weather landing capability not previously possible. I intend to do this through an expansion of our establishment criteria for approach and landing aids; an expansion that will give full recognition to the benefit relievers and other general aviation airports provide the system by redirecting general aviation traffic away from busy, air carrier airports. Second, we will continue our high priority program for the installation of BRITE (TV) radar systems in our towers. This system provides great assistance to tower controllers in sequencing traffic. Beyond that, I have instructed my staff to expedite the installation of BRITE alpha-numeric subsystems so that tower controllers using these digitized displays will have available the same data presently used by radar controllers. This feature will also provide the tower controller with conflict alert system and minimum safe altitude warning system capabilities. Last, I have decided that our system has evolved to the point at which the concept of positive separation assurance should be expanded in terminal areas. Early next year, we will issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing a number of alternative actions to expand positive separation in terminal areas. Among the alternatives we will set out for public comment are: Adding more Terminal Control Areas; Expanding the geographic coverage of existing Terminal Control Areas; Extending the concept of positive control, as exists at high altitudes, to terminal airspace; Permitting only instrument flight rules operations within terminal airspace designated as positive control airspace; Establishing Controlled Visual Flight Rules in terminal airspace designated as positive control airspace; Applying Mode C transponder requirements to any additional positive control airspace; and Broadening the requirements for the carriage of beacon transponders and altitude encoders to be compatible with separation assurance programs. To assure the full participation of industry, users, and the public in our decisionmaking process, we will hold a public hearing on the proposals contained in the notice. Based upon the public comment received, we will expedite the development of necessary rules. While it is premature to define the substance or extent of these rules, my expectation is they will result in the application of positive separation procedures at an increased number of busy terminal areas. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we are striving to meet the challenges of the system, both present and future. We have made significant steps forward, and you have my personal assurance that we will continue our efforts to improve the system with all deliberate speed. But again I would stress to the air traveller that the present system is a good one serving well nearly three-quarters of a million fare paying passengers daily. We welcome your continued support. As our legislative committees of the Congress, you are familiar with the difficult problems we face as well as the even greater difficulty of finding solutions to those problems. Your guidance and legislative assistance have proven invaluable in the past, and are no less necessary today in helping us to further refine and develop a system that will safely meet the needs of the American travelling public in the future. Mr. Chairman, that completes my prepared statement. My associates and I are prepared to respond to your questions and those of other Members of the Committee. The CHAIRMAN. On these items that you were making recommendations on, the BRITE system was not in place in the tower here at Lindbergh, was it? Mr. BOND. Yes; there is a BRITE display down there at the Lindbergh tower. The CHAIRMAN. First, let me say that I am pleased to hear of the positive actions that you have stated that you're going to take. To accomplish the changes you have proposed in your statement, do you intend to draw money away from other priority items, or do you intend to request additional funds to implement these chauges? Mr. BOND. Well, Mr. Chairman, our review of the ADAP program will be submitted to the Congress next May. We intend to request additional funds in order to have F and E programs commensurate with the level of funding that's needed. We have been somewhat hesitant to make statements about the amount of funds available in the trust fund because until just a few weeks ago, when Congress ended, we had thought that the trust fund balances would be affected by the noise bill which you and Congressman Glenn Anderson provided such leadership in. All of the assumptions on the trust fund balances are now changed as a result of the nonpassage of this legislation by the Congress. So, a direct answer to your question: yes; we will provide for additional funding in our ADAP program in the next fiscal year. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Litchford, the systems developer of BCAS, has projected that it could be completed in 18 months and ready for installation. Why does your testimony indicate that it will be 1983 or beyond to install that system? Mr. BOND. I would like to have Mr. Albrecht, our Acting Associate Administrator for Engineering and Development, answer that question. Mr. ALBRECHT. Mr. Chairman, in Mr. Bond's testimony he included a fairly complete description of our separation assurance program. I would like to very, very briefly summarize the major elements. that relate to Mr. Litchford's statement and to the issues. As you perhaps know, we have three major portions of our program. One is a full-up BCAS program, beacon collision avoidance system. A simplified version of that can be made available earlier as an active-only BCAS system. The third element is a ground-based system, automated traffic advisory and resolution service. These three elements we're carrying forward as aggressively as we can. Now, several years ago our airborne collision avoidance program was basically a competition between an active technique and a passive technique. An active technique uses interrogators in the aircraft which interrogate another aircraft, gets a reply back, and determines. if there is a problem. The passive technique, which is due entirely to George Litchford's concept, utilizes interrogation from the ground that triggers beacons that are received by the aircraft, who then does some computations and determines whether there is a conflict. Two basically different approaches. It became clear after evaluation of both of these, they each have their problems and each have their advantages. The passive technique has a major disadvantage in not being effective in areas where there is no surveillance. This is true outside of the continental United States and it's also true in a number of geographical areas where adequate radar coverage is not available. It takes at least two radars illuminating the aircraft in order for the passive technique to work effectively. The active technique has a major limitation in that it cannot develop heading information. It can only provide up-down commands to resolve conflicts. So that really led to our development of what we call the full BCAS system, which combines both of these techniques. and provides some computation capability to sense the environment, to decide which of the two types of sensors are most appropriate for the environment, and use that data to give instructions to the pilot. The CHAIRMAN. Why do you continue to push the active BCAS system when you say it has to be shut off when you get in a highdensity area because of the probabilities or the possibilities of creating other problems? Mr. ALBRECHT. There are two reasons, Mr. Chairman. The first is: For many, many locations the active BCAS system will be effective. Except for high-density areas, the active system will work. It also is the only way to get protection in the areas where there is no surveillance coverage. Now, Mr. Litchford's approach is a little different than ours in that he does not base his system on the use of the DABS, discrete address beacon system. The discrete address beacon system is an essential element in the future of air traffic control improvement. It provides improved surveillance coverage. It provides a way of discretely addressing each aircraft instead of broadcasting to all aircraft and receiving replies. It decreases the interference, so-called garble; it provides a two-way data link between the ground and the aircraft so we can transmit information to the cockpit and make it available to the pilot and he in turn can retransmit information down to the ground. So, DABS is a building block in our program. The Litchford approach is not compatible with DABS. We also believe that the Litchford approach, as presently conceived, is capacity-limited. This is the major problem in that in the heavier terminal areas, as with the active-only system, the number of overlapping replies is such that the system would not operate satisfactorily. Mr. GOLDWATER. Would the gentleman yield? Isn't it a fact you really haven't evaluated the Litchford system? You terminated the contract before he completed the hardware and full testing. Mr. ALBRECHT. Mr. Goldwater. that's not the case. We have evaluated the Litchford system with a large number of simulations, flight tests. And the contract is not terminated. That was an unfortunate word that was used in stopping some work on some items to avoid an overrun. These are items we didn't feel were necessary. George has made his major contribution, but his contract is not terminated. He is still under contract and should be funded through February, depending on how he spends his money. Mr. GOLDWATER. To finish what he set out to do? Mr. ALBRECHT. That's right, which was initially to show the feasibility of the BCAS concept. He has done that, sir. We have no technical concern that given a sufficient amount of engineering from this point ahead that both passive/active techniques will be effective and will work. And this is George's major contribution. But he's done that. The CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't independent ground and airborne collision avoidance systems provide a positive safety check in case one of them fails? Mr. ALBRECHT. Yes, Senator Cannon, and we are aggressively pursuing both approaches. It's been said we're enchanted with groundderived information and the ground-based system is the one that we're pursuing. We are pursuing both. We think we need both. They're backup to each other. The ground system has more information available. It knows local terrain conditions. It has much greater computational capability. It requires much less equipment in a general aviation aircraft. It requires very little equipment compared to BCAS, for example. So, we believe both solutions are necessary, and we are pursuing them as fast as we can. The CHAIRMAN. In your testimony, Mr. Bond, you refer to changes that may be needed in terminal area procedures and policies. Let me ask you a few specific questions. Will you change the ATC procedures to require a controller to advise pilots of a conflict alert even if the pilots have previously been given traffic advisories and accepted the separation function? Mr. BOND. Mr. Chairman, that is a question that arose in association with this San Diego incident here, where the conflict alert did go off in the Miramar Tracon, but the controller, following procedures, did not act on it because the pilot had acknowledged the presence of the aircraft. Let me go back a notch in the understanding of this problem to point out what a conflict alert permits a controller to do. It permits the controller to get on the radio to the pilot and say there is an aircraft in the vicinity and nothing more. Also, turn one way or the other. That's helpful. But the controller did not do so because the pilot had already been warned and had said, "We have seen this aircraft. I have seen his aircraft." Now, in the review of what's going on now within the FAA in parallel to what the Safety Board is doing, we are considering just this issue. We are examining every issue that we can find factually and procedurally, and this will be considered as we come up with our report on the accident. Perhaps we can improve our procedures. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it seems to me that there wouldn't be any harm to again advise a pilot. Then if the alert goes off to have a means of immediately advising the pilot that there is a conflict alert sounding. This would certainly give him much more concern about the fact that there may be some imminent danger. Mr. BOND. If we find that to be the case, Mr. Chairman, we will change our procedures to do that. The CHAIRMAN. Now, is it your intention to make the heavier passenger volume terminals-that is, the large and medium hubsTCA's as soon as possible? Mr. BOND. My statement was that we will establish new TCA's. The list of new terminal control areas, however, has not yet been determined, and our analysis is shifting from the considerations of the San Diego crash to the implementation of specific changes nationwide, not only here in San Diego, but throughout the United States. We have not yet developed a list of sites where new TCA's will be implemented. That, however, will be made public very shortly, and I can promise you that there will be significant change. The CHAIRMAN. What do you mean by "very shortly"? How soon? Mr. BOND. Well, I would hope by the first of the year. The CHAIRMAN. My time is up. Congressman Anderson. Mr. ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Bond, why are you waiting until next year to put out an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on expanding the TCA concept? Why wouldn't you do that now? It doesn't cost anything to give the advance notice. Mr. BOND. I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in terms of the list of additional TCA's that we will establish, we must be sure that the ones we establish are right and appropriate. We are not sure yet that is the case. And we are working as hard as we can to make sure that the package we present is feasible, practical, and implementable. That is why we cannot do it now. We do not know yet what to do. Mr. ANDERSON. I would think the advance notice is just a notification that you're going to be doing this. Advance notice on a proposed rulemaking is something you can do fairly fast. Mr. BOND. We cannot do it unless we know what goes in it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ANDERSON. Two years ago the FAA conducted research into ways to make aircraft more conspicuous in the air. What specifically did you find and what regulatory changes were made as a result of that research? |