This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-920
entitled 'U.S. Aerospace Industry: Progress in Implementing Aerospace
Commission Recommendations, and Remaining Challenges' which was
released on September 28, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2006:
U.S. Aerospace Industry:
Progress in Implementing Aerospace Commission Recommendations, and
Remaining Challenges:
Aerospace Commission:
GAO-06-920:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-920, a report to the Ranking Democratic Member,
Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. aerospace industry’s wide-ranging activities—including
commercial aviation, national security, and space exploration—make it
critical to the economic health and strategic strength of our nation.
However, the industry faces challenges, such as a national air traffic
management system that, in its present form, cannot handle expected
increases in demand; an aging aerospace workforce; and an increasingly
competitive global market. In response to these and other challenges,
Congress established the Commission on the Future of the United States
Aerospace Industry in 2001 to recommend potential actions by the
federal government and others to support a robust aerospace industry in
the 21st century. In 2002, the Commission made recommendations to
address these challenges.
This report discusses (1) the extent to which federal agencies have
addressed selected Commission recommendations and (2) the challenges
that remain in addressing the recommendations. Based on the opinions of
former Commissioners and GAO research, GAO selected recommendations
dealing with the national airspace system, space policy, government-
wide management structure, international issues, the aerospace
workforce, and research and development. This report is based on
reviews of agency documents, literature, and interviews with aerospace
experts and officials from relevant federal agencies.
What GAO Found:
Federal agencies have taken actions that address selected Commission
recommendations to varying degrees, from establishing new offices,
programs, and policies to changing existing programs or policies;
however, the actions the agencies have taken are still in the early
stages of implementation. For instance, the creation of the Joint
Planning and Development Office (JPDO) addresses the recommendation to
establish an interagency office to plan a new, highly automated air
traffic management system; however, JPDO faces challenges in leveraging
resources and maintaining the commitment of nonfederal stakeholders.
Additionally, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
created a directorate to implement the President’s new space
exploration policy, which addresses the Commission’s space exploration
recommendation. Aerospace experts told us that they believe this may
negatively affect other space exploration programs that have
significant benefits. Changes to existing programs include NASA’s
restructuring of its aeronautics research program and FAA’s attempts to
increase the U.S. presence in international aviation partnerships.
Federal agencies have taken few, if any, actions to address other
Commission’s recommendations, such as creating a government-wide
management structure for aerospace.
Challenges remain for federal agencies in further addressing the
Commission’s recommendations, including dealing with difficult
budgetary trade-offs and collaborating on actions involving multiple
agencies. For example, federal agencies may have to give priority to
some programs that address Commission recommendations at the expense of
other programs because of budget limitations. In addition, with
multiple agencies involved in the U.S. aerospace industry, a lack of
coordination among them, aerospace companies, and universities could
result in duplication and inefficient resource leveraging. GAO provided
a draft of this report to the relevant federal agencies. The Department
of Defense had no comments; the other agencies generally concurred with
the report, but provided clarifications and technical comments, which
GAO incorporated as appropriate.
Figure: Proposed Cargo Launch Vehicle with Lunar Lander Is an Example
of Aerospace Research and Development:
[See PDF for Image]
Sources: NASA; John Frassanitio and Associates.
[End of Figure]
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-920].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Gerald L. Dillingham at
(202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Federal Agencies Have Addressed Commission Recommendations to Varying
Degrees through Different Types of Actions:
Federal Agencies Face Challenges in Addressing the Commission's
Recommendations:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and Development Funding Trends:
Aerospace R&D Includes a Wide Range of Activities:
Federal Support of R&D Remains Critical to the Aerospace Industry:
Objectives of Federal Funding for Aerospace R&D Differ by Agency and
Mission:
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address Selected Aerospace
Commission Recommendations:
Appendix IV: Joint Planning and Development Office:
Role of the Joint Planning and Development Office in the National
Airspace System Modernization:
JPDO Organization Structure and Partner Agencies:
JPDO's Integrated Plan:
JPDO Efforts to Leverage Partner Agency Resources:
JPDO Is Involving Nonfederal Stakeholders:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary of Aerospace Commission Recommendations:
Table 2: Grants Awarded by Labor for Aerospace Workforce Projects:
Table 3: Reshaped Strategy of NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate:
Table 4: Experts Providing Input during Our Review:
Table 5: JPDO's Strategies and Responsible Agencies:
Figures:
Figure 1: Federal Funding for Industrial R&D in the Aerospace Industry:
Figure 2: Key Federal Entities for Selected Recommendations:
Figure 3: Extent to Which Selected Recommendations Have Been Addressed:
Figure 4: JPDO's Seven Partner Agencies:
Figure 5: Proposed Cargo Launch Vehicle with Lunar Lander Is an Example
of Aerospace R&D:
Figure 6: Projected Trends in Major Aerospace-Related Missions within
NASA, Fiscal Years 2005-2011:
Figure 7: Defense Budget for Science and Technology for Air and Space
Platforms, Fiscal Years 2001-2005:
Figure 8: Defense Budget Authority for Basic and Applied Research, and
for Development, Fiscal Years 1999-2007:
Figure 9: Actual and Projected Funding Trends in Major Aerospace-
Related Missions within NASA, Fiscal Years 2005-2011:
Figure 10: NASA's Budget Authority for Basic and Applied Research, and
for Development, Fiscal Years 1999-2007:
Figure 11: FAA Outlays for R&D, Including R&D for Facilities and
Equipment, Fiscal Years 1999-2007:
Figure 12: Global Positioning System Display Screen Used in Capstone
Program:
Figure 13: Information Regarding the Moon and Mars:
Figure 14: Proposed Advanced Orbital Transfer Propulsion Technology:
Figure 15: ASTS Membership:
Figure 16: Engineers at NASA Langley Research Center:
Figure 17: Computational Fluid Dynamic Image of the Hyper-X Vehicle:
Figure 18: NASA Glen Research Center's Research on Aircraft Noise:
Figure 19: JPDO Organization Chart:
Abbreviations:
ADS-B: Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast:
ASTS: Aeronautics, Science, and Technology Subcommittee:
ATO: Air Traffic Organization:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization:
IPT: integrated product team:
JPDO: Joint Planning and Development Office:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NGATS: next generation air transportation system:
OSTP: Office Science and Technology Policy:
R&D: research and development:
RNP: required navigation performance:
SESAR: Single European Air Traffic Management Research Programme:
SMART: Science and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent:
STEM: science, technology, engineering and mathematics:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 13, 2006:
The Honorable Jerry F. Costello:
Ranking Democratic Member:
Subcommittee on Aviation:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Costello:
The U.S. aerospace industry is critical to the economic health and
strategic strength of the nation. The industry's wide-ranging
activities--including aircraft manufacturing and commercial aviation--
make it a major contributor to U.S. economic growth. The Aerospace
Industries Association estimates that the industry employs
approximately 625,000 people with sales of approximately $170 billion
in 2005. This economic benefit is in part due to the United States'
global leadership in the development of a robust commercial aviation
industry, the industry's employment of a highly skilled and trained
workforce, and the manufacture of civil and defense aerospace products.
These factors have allowed the U.S. aerospace industry to produce
significant improvements in science, technology, and national security
in and beyond the aerospace field. For example, the global positioning
system uses satellites, ground control networks, and user equipment to
provide navigational information for land, sea, and airborne
navigation; surveying and mapping; farming; telecommunications; and a
wide variety of other applications.
However, the aerospace industry faces a host of challenges, such as a
national air traffic management system that, in its present form, lacks
the capacity to handle expected increases in air traffic; an aging
aerospace industry workforce; and an increasingly competitive global
market that may threaten the U.S. industry's traditional leadership in
aerospace manufacturing. According to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), the demand for both passenger and cargo air
service will continue to grow for the foreseeable future, and these
increases will place a greater strain on the current national airspace
system--increasing airspace congestion and delays, and resulting in
negative economic effects. Additionally, the government has reported
that an estimated 26 percent of aerospace workers will be eligible to
retire by 2008, and there are concerns about the availability of
sufficiently trained workers to fill these positions. Furthermore, the
industry has reported having difficulty not only retaining its existing
workforce, but also attracting young people into the field. Finally,
increased global competition from both foreign companies and
governments will place even more pressure on the industry. For example,
the European Union published two reports--STAR-21[Footnote 1] and
Vision 2020[Footnote 2]--that establish European aerospace policy
objectives, including the use of government resources to pursue global
leadership by European aerospace companies.
In response to these and other challenges, Congress established the
Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry (the
Commission) in 2001 to study the issues associated with the future of
this industry in the global economy, and to recommend potential actions
by the federal government to support the maintenance of a robust
aerospace industry in the 21st century.[Footnote 3] In 2002, the
Commission made recommendations to address these challenges.[Footnote
4] Some of the recommendations proposed by the Commission included
transforming the national air transportation system, creating a U.S.
space exploration imperative, creating a government-wide management
structure to support aerospace, establishing a level playing field for
the United States in global markets, promoting the growth of the U.S.
aerospace workforce, and increasing government investment in aerospace
research and development (R&D).
You asked us to determine the status of federal actions that address
the Commission's recommendations. Accordingly, this report focuses on
the following questions: (1) To what extent have federal agencies
addressed selected Commission recommendations? (2) What challenges
remain in addressing these recommendations?
To address these two questions, we obtained and analyzed information
from a variety of sources. We reviewed the relevant empirical
literature to understand the circumstances under which the Commission
was formed and to develop the context and perspective of the issues
facing the aerospace industry. We interviewed five of twelve former
Commission members and the former Commission's executive director to
obtain their opinions on which of the specific recommendations are the
most important. Since each of the former Commissioners is an expert in
specific aerospace issues the Commission examined, we selected these
former Commissioners to ensure coverage of all Commission
recommendations. Using their opinions and our research, we selected
recommendations that address transforming the national air
transportation system, creating a U.S. space exploration imperative,
creating a government-wide management structure to support a national
aerospace policy, establishing a level playing field for the United
States in global markets, promoting the growth of the U.S. aerospace
workforce, and increasing government investment in aerospace R&D. To
determine the extent to which federal agencies addressed the selected
recommendations and the challenges that remain, we interviewed
officials from FAA; the Departments of Defense (Defense), Labor
(Labor), and Transportation (DOT); the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA); the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP); private aerospace companies; and industry associations.
In addition, we analyzed agency budget documents, strategic plans,
briefings on federal agency actions, and our past work describing
challenges that agencies face in implementing the selected
recommendations. With the assistance of the National Academy of
Sciences, we identified experts in the fields of national air
transportation systems, U.S. space exploration, government aerospace
management structure, U.S. aerospace workforce and education, and
aerospace R&D. We then interviewed these experts to obtain their views
about the extent to which federal actions have addressed the selected
Commission recommendations, and about the challenges that lie ahead.
These experts are listed in appendix I. We did not analyze the validity
of the Commission's recommendations, and our work does not take a
position on, or represent an endorsement of, the recommendations. We
conducted our work from August 2005 through September 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Additional information on our scope and methodology appears in appendix
I.
Results in Brief:
Federal agencies have taken actions that address selected Commission
recommendations to varying degrees, from establishing new offices,
programs, and policies to changing existing programs or policies;
however, the actions the agencies have taken are still in the early
stages of implementation. For example, the Commission's recommendation
to establish a federal interdepartmental group to plan a new, highly
automated air traffic management system was addressed by the creation
of the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), which consists of
seven federal agencies, including FAA, NASA, and Defense. However, JPDO
faces challenges in leveraging partner agency resources and maintaining
commitment from nonfederal stakeholders as it moves forward in planning
the new air traffic management system. In addition, the President
issued a new space exploration policy and NASA created a directorate to
implement the policy, realigning some programs and funds to do so. Both
the new policy and the directorate address the broad Commission
recommendation to create a space imperative. Other new efforts include
a jobs training initiative and education programs that address the
broad Commission recommendation to promote the growth of the U.S.
aerospace workforce. Labor and the Department of Education have
provided grant funding for these efforts, however, there are questions
about the impact of the grants. Changes to existing programs include
NASA's restructuring of its aeronautics research program, which
addresses the specific Commission recommendation to increase the
federal focus on long-term aerospace research; FAA's revisions to its
rule making and airport environmental review procedures, which address
the specific Commission recommendations to streamline the regulatory
and airport review processes; and FAA's attempts to increase the U.S.
presence in international aviation partnerships, which addresses the
specific Commission recommendation to commit to international
partnerships. Federal agencies have taken few, if any, actions to
address other Commission recommendations such as reforming exports
control policies and establishing a national aerospace policy.
A number of challenges remain for federal agencies in further
addressing the Commission's recommendations, including dealing with
difficult budgetary trade-offs and collaborating on actions involving
multiple agencies. Federal agencies may not give priority to programs
that address Commission recommendations because of budget limitations.
Such budgetary trade-offs are all the more likely if implementing a
recommendation requires launching or expanding large, expensive
programs. NASA has already realigned some programs that address the
Commission's recommendations--such as the recommendation to create a
U.S. space imperative--and, in so doing, has had to make some difficult
budgetary prioritization decisions. Since multiple federal agencies are
involved in the U.S. aerospace industry, a lack of coordination among
federal agencies, aerospace companies, and universities could result in
duplicating efforts and not leveraging resources efficiently. For
example, our prior work has shown that coordination of federal science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics education programs has been
limited, and that better coordination between federal agencies could
help the agencies to better encourage students to pursue careers in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. We provided a draft
of this report to the Departments of Defense, Labor, and
Transportation, NASA, and the Office of Science Technology Policy for
their review and comment. The Department of Defense had no comments,
and the other agencies generally concurred with the report, but
provided clarifications and technical comments, which we incorporated
as appropriate.
Background:
The impact of the aerospace industry on the U.S. economy is
significant, with the industry estimating $170 billion in sales and
approximately 625,000 people employed in 2005.[Footnote 5] The
importance of this industry to the U.S. economy will continue to grow
in the future. According to FAA, the U.S. commercial aircraft fleet is
estimated to grow from 7,836 in 2005 to 10,677 in 2017. Both passenger
capacity and cargo operations are expected to continue to grow, with
passenger capacity in 2007 increasing by 4.6 percent and then
increasing by an average of 4.2 percent per year until 2017. FAA
estimates that over 1 billion passengers will use U.S. airports by
2015. Domestic cargo revenue-ton miles are projected to increase at an
average annual rate of 3.2 percent until 2017, exceeding 23 billion.
Furthermore, the U.S. aerospace industry consistently shows a foreign
trade surplus--reaching $31 billion in 2004. Aerospace exports
constituted 6.9 percent of the total value of U.S.-exported merchandise
in 2004.
Role of Government and Industry in Aerospace Is Significant:
The federal government is involved in many aspects of aerospace, such
as civil aviation transportation management, national security, space
exploration, and related R&D. FAA, NASA, and Defense are major federal
agencies significantly involved in aerospace activities.[Footnote 6]
* FAA is responsible for maintaining a safe and efficient national
airspace system by managing the nation's air traffic control system,
which comprises a vast network of radars; automated data processing,
navigation, and communications equipment; and facilities. As manager of
the air traffic control system, FAA provides services such as
controlling takeoffs and landings and managing the flow of traffic
between airports. In addition, FAA serves as the national aviation
regulatory authority and implements and enforces safety regulations
that include certifications of aircraft, aircraft operations, and
aviation pilots and mechanics.
* NASA is responsible for the nation's civil space and aeronautics
efforts. In this role, NASA conducts human exploration of space,
conducts R&D in aeronautics and space technologies, and conducts R&D to
advance and communicate scientific knowledge. NASA's programs encompass
a broad range of complex and technical activities--from investigating
the composition and resources of Mars to providing satellite and
aircraft observations of Earth for scientific purposes and weather
forecasting.
* Defense is responsible for national security and purchases a variety
of aerospace products from the private sector such as aircraft,
satellites, missiles, space launch systems, and supporting products.
Defense also manages a broad array of space activities, including the
development of space launch vehicles and satellites used for
communication; navigation; intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance; and weather monitoring.
The private sector provides aerospace products and services. For
example, U.S. companies manufacture aerospace products that include
commercial and military aircraft, satellites, and air traffic
infrastructure systems. Commercial airlines provide domestic and
international aviation passenger service. Software and electronics
companies produce avionics and other electronic systems that are used
in all types of aerospace products. To provide these products and
services, companies rely on a highly skilled workforce of approximately
625,000 employees, including manufacturing technicians, aerospace
engineers, and scientists.
Government Funding of Aerospace R&D Is Significant, but Trends in
Funding Differ among Agencies:
R&D enables the advancement of aerospace technologies, and funding for
it will continue to be necessary if the industry is to maintain its
global competitiveness and meet future needs. Traditionally, the
federal government has provided significant funding for aerospace R&D
(see fig. 1). However, federal R&D investments in some areas of
aerospace, like aeronautics, are in decline. For example, NASA
estimates that its 2006 direct aeronautics R&D budget will decline by
approximately 43 percent from 2002, the time of publication of the
Commission report. Conversely, R&D funding is increasing in space
exploration areas as well as defense-related areas such as ballistic
missile defense and defense-related aeronautics.[Footnote 7] Additional
information on federal government R&D funding trends appears in
appendix II.
Figure 1: Federal Funding for Industrial R&D in the Aerospace Industry:
[See PDF for image]
Source: National Science Foundation.
[End of figure]
Aerospace Industry Facing Multiple Challenges:
Despite the economic importance of the aerospace industry, many
challenges face both government and private industry in maintaining the
industry's health. First, the current approach to managing air
transportation is becoming increasingly inefficient and operationally
obsolete. The government will be faced with transforming the U.S. air
traffic management system to accommodate expected increases in demand
while ensuring the continued safety and security of the flying public.
Second, given the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.
government has had to reevaluate whether existing arms export-control
policies support national security and foreign policy goals. Finally,
the U.S. aerospace workforce is aging and a significant percentage of
the aerospace workforce will be eligible to retire by 2008. Therefore,
the industry must attract, train, and retain new workers with the
engineering, science, and technical capabilities it needs. But recent
trends show declines in the future supply of such workers. For example,
the Commission highlighted that the number of doctorate degrees awarded
annually in engineering had declined by 15 percent from the mid 1990s.
Aerospace Commission Made Recommendations to Address Challenges:
To confront these challenges, the U.S. Congress established the
Commission and gave it a broad mandate to study the health of the
aerospace industry and recommend actions that the U.S. government
should take to ensure the industry's future health. Congress directed
the Commission to take an integrated, long-term view of the entire
aerospace industry from the perspective of government, industry, labor,
and academia. Therefore, its 12 members came from manufacturing firms,
industry groups, aerospace consultancies, financial institutions, and
labor groups with expertise in space and aeronautics in both civil and
defense areas. In 2002, the Commission issued its final report on the
major challenges facing the U.S. aerospace industry and recommended
actions to address these challenges. The Commission's recommendations
covered a wide variety of aerospace issues and included both broad
government policy recommendations and specific actions for individual
federal agencies.[Footnote 8] For example, one recommendation called
for the United States to pioneer new frontiers in aerospace while
another recommendation specifically called for FAA to reform its
certification process. Table 1 provides a summary of some of the major
issue areas identified by the Commission report, as well as some
challenges and nine broad recommendations made by the Commission to
address the issues.
Table 1: Summary of Aerospace Commission Recommendations:
Area addressed: Aerospace vision;
Sample of challenges identified by the Commission: U.S. leadership in
the global aerospace industry is in jeopardy, in part because the U.S.
aerospace sector lacks capital investment, innovation, and capacity for
growth; and foreign competitors are increasingly implementing policies
to gain global market share in commercial aviation;
Summary of broad recommendation made by the Commission: The United
States should pioneer new frontiers in aerospace technology, commerce,
and exploration.
Area addressed: National air transportation system;
Sample of challenges identified by the Commission: America's air
transportation system faces serious challenges; the commercial air
transport system is becoming unpredictable because the current air
traffic system is approaching gridlock, regulatory processes have
failed to keep pace with rapidly evolving technologies, and
environmental limits on noise and emissions restrict airport runway
development;
Summary of broad recommendation made by the Commission: Transformation
of the U.S. air transportation system should be a national priority.
Area addressed: U.S. space policy;
Sample of challenges identified by the Commission: The nation faces
limitations to space progress, such as the significant expense to get
to orbit, a hostile and highly limited environment once in orbit, and
lack of a strong public advocacy for moving ahead;
Summary of broad recommendation made by the Commission: The United
States should create a space imperative, through government and private
sector partnerships, to enhance national security, stimulate the
economy, explore the universe, and open up space for new commercial
opportunities.
Area addressed: National security;
Sample of challenges identified by the Commission: Today's military
capabilities are robust, but at significant risk. They rely on
platforms and an industrial base-- measured in both human capital and
physical facilities--that are aging and increasingly inadequate;
Summary of broad recommendation made by the Commission: The United
States should adopt a policy that invigorates and sustains the
aerospace industrial base and includes removing barriers to
international sales of defense products, removing barriers to defense
procurement of commercial products and services, and transferring
defense technology to the civil sector.
Area addressed: Government-wide management structure;
Sample of challenges identified by the Commission: The health and
future of the aerospace industry will depend on the federal government
being able to efficiently and effectively serve as leader, customer and
operator, facilitator, and investor;
Summary of broad recommendation made by the Commission: The federal
government should establish a national aerospace policy and promote
aerospace by creating a government-wide management structure.
Area addressed: Open and fair global markets;
Sample of challenges identified by the Commission: Foreign governments
or coalitions of countries are distorting the aerospace market through
policies, regulations, or subsidies that provide foreign competitors
with a competitive advantage;
Summary of broad recommendation made by the Commission: Federal
regulations and policies should be reformed to enable the movement of
products and capital across international borders on a fully
competitive basis and to establish a level playing field for U.S.
industry in the global marketplace.
Area addressed: A new business model for the aerospace sector;
Sample of challenges identified by the Commission: The aerospace
industry has been characterized as a low-growth sector, chronically
hampered by high cyclicality, low margins, revenue instability, and
inadequate returns on investment, amplified by the uncertainty in the
government budgeting and acquisition process;
Summary of broad recommendation made by the Commission: A new business
model, with increased and sustained government investment and the
adoption of policies that stimulate the flow of capital into the
industry, should be designed to promote a healthy and growing U.S.
aerospace industry.
Area addressed: U.S. aerospace workforce;
Sample of challenges identified by the Commission: There is a major
workforce crisis in the aerospace industry. Over 600,000 scientific and
technical aerospace jobs have been lost since 1998, and these losses,
coupled with pending retirements, represent a loss of skill,
experience, and intellectual capital to the industry;
Summary of broad recommendation made by the Commission: The nation
should immediately reverse the decline in, and promote the growth of, a
scientifically and technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce.
Area addressed: U.S. aerospace R&D;
Sample of challenges identified by the Commission: The lack of
sufficient and sustained public funding for research and associated
infrastructure for research, development, testing, and evaluation
limits the nation's ability to address critical national challenges and
to enable breakthrough aerospace capabilities;
Summary of broad recommendation made by the Commission: The federal
government should significantly increase its investment in basic
aerospace research, which enhances U.S. national security; enables
breakthrough capabilities; and fosters an efficient, secure, and safe
aerospace transportation system.
Source: Commission report.
[End of table]
Additionally, since the publication of the Commission report, other
studies by such organizations as the National Academy of Sciences and
the National Institute of Aerospace also provided information on the
importance of the aerospace industry, along with challenges and
recommendations for addressing the issues.[Footnote 9]
Federal Agencies Have Addressed Commission Recommendations to Varying
Degrees through Different Types of Actions:
The federal government has addressed a number of the Commission's
recommendations; however, the extent to which it has done so varies
significantly across the individual recommendations. Figure 2
identifies the key federal entities that have taken steps to address
the recommendations or, because of their missions, were identified by
the Commission as the entities that would be responsible for addressing
the recommendations.
Figure 2: Key Federal Entities for Selected Recommendations:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Former Commissioners and experts with whom we spoke generally agreed
that the federal government's efforts to transform the national
airspace system was the most significant action that addresses a
Commission recommendation--in particular, the establishment of JPDO as
an interagency office. These former Commissioners and experts also
cited the President's Vision for Space Exploration,[Footnote 10] which
addresses the Commission's recommendation that the United States create
a space imperative to explore and exploit space to ensure national and
planetary security, economic benefit, and scientific discovery. In
addition, federal agencies have started addressing the workforce issue
through a new jobs training initiative. According to our
research[Footnote 11] and the opinions of former Commissioners and
aerospace industry officials, the federal government has not taken any
significant action to address the recommendations to change the current
export control policy. In addition, there has been no action taken by
the federal government to establish a national aerospace
policy.[Footnote 12] While many of these federal actions address the
Commission's recommendations, some agency officials indicated that some
federal actions predate the Commission report and therefore do not
represent a direct response to the Commission's recommendations. Figure
3 summarizes the extent to which federal agencies have taken actions--
such as publishing new policies or establishing new offices--that
address some of the Commission's recommendations. While this
information summarizes federal actions, it does not evaluate how well
these actions have been implemented. See appendix III for additional
federal actions that address selected aerospace Commission
recommendations.
Figure 3: Extent to Which Selected Recommendations Have Been Addressed:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis.
[A] Refers to the JPDO demonstration goals identified in its next
generation air transportation system integrated plan.
[End of figure]
New Federal Programs and Policies Have Addressed Some Commission
Recommendations:
Congress and federal agencies have established new offices, programs,
and policies that address a number of the Commission's recommendations
in the areas of transforming the U.S. air transportation system,
creating a U.S. space imperative, and promoting the U.S. aerospace
workforce. However, the actions the agencies have taken are still in
the early stages of implementation.
Creation of JPDO Addresses Recommendation to Transform the U.S. Air
Transportation System, but Funding Concerns Remain:
In 2003, Congress passed the Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Vision 100)[Footnote 13], which created JPDO
within FAA to plan work related to the creation of the next generation
air transportation system (NGATS). The Commission identified the
current air traffic management system as severely limited in its
ability to accommodate America's growing need for mobility, and that
the design, development, and implementation of a next generation air
traffic management system will be an exceedingly complex challenge. The
Commission called for a federal inter-departmental group--working
collaboratively with industry, labor, and other stakeholders--to be
formed to plan this new system, and former Commissioners and experts
agree that the creation of JPDO addresses this recommendation. JPDO
consists of seven partner agencies: the Departments of Commerce
(Commerce) and Homeland Security; Defense; DOT; FAA; NASA; and OSTP.
(See fig. 4.) Additionally, JPDO has responsibility to consult with the
public; to coordinate federal goals, priorities, and research
activities with those of aviation and aeronautical firms; and to ensure
the participation of nonfederal stakeholders from the private sector,
including commercial and general aviation, labor, aviation R&D
entities, and manufacturers. To date, JPDO has been funded by FAA and
NASA.[Footnote 14]
Figure 4: JPDO's Seven Partner Agencies:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Vision 100 directed JPDO to develop an integrated plan for NGATS and to
include in the plan, among other things, a description of the demand
and required performance characteristics of the future system, as well
as a high-level, multi-agency roadmap and concept of operations for the
future system.[Footnote 15] NGATS is needed to avoid congestion and
costly delays, provide adequate security and environmental safeguards,
and accommodate a projected tripling of demand for air traffic services
by 2025. This is a significant challenge given that these new
capabilities must be deployed seamlessly while the current system
continues to operate. (See app. IV for more information on JPDO.)
We found that JPDO has made progress in organizing itself and
incorporating federal and nonfederal stakeholders; it has also set
forth a vision for NGATS and strategies for attaining that
vision.[Footnote 16] Furthermore, JPDO has engaged in practices to
facilitate the federal interagency collaboration that is central to its
mission. The partner agencies have agreed to a vision statement and
eight strategies that broadly address the goals and objectives for
NGATS. JPDO has also begun leveraging the resources of its partner
agencies. To leverage human resources, JPDO has staffed its
organization with partner-agency employees, although many of them work
for JPDO on a part-time basis. To further leverage resources, JPDO
conducted an interagency program review of its partner agencies' R&D
programs to identify the work that could support NGATS, as well as
identify areas for more effective interagency collaboration.
However, as it moves forward in planning the new air traffic management
system, JPDO faces a challenge in continuing to leverage partner
agencies' resources because JPDO is fundamentally a planning and
coordinating body that lacks authority over the key human and financial
resources needed to continue developing plans and system requirements
for NGATS. Despite early successes in leveraging its partner agencies'
resources and expertise for NGATS initiatives, JPDO may have difficulty
continuing to do so because its partner agencies have a variety of
missions and priorities in addition to NGATS. As a result, some experts
questioned the ability of partner agencies to fully support the
research needs of NGATS at planned levels. For example, the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget request for NASA did not seek significant
funding increases for aeronautics research to support NGATS.[Footnote
17] JPDO's ability to leverage technical assistance and funding
resources from its partner agencies will be further tested in 2008,
when JPDO is planning technology demonstration projects related to
NGATS. In addition, JPDO may have difficulty leveraging its partner
agencies' resources and expertise because it does not yet have formal,
long-term agreements with the agencies on their roles and
responsibilities in creating NGATS. According to JPDO officials, they
are working to establish memorandums of understanding signed by the
heads of the partner agencies that will broadly define the partner
agencies' roles and responsibilities at a high level. JPDO is also
developing more specific memorandums of understanding with individual
partner agencies that lay out expectations for support on NGATS
components, such as information sharing through network-centric
operations. Additionally, JPDO faces the challenge of convincing
nonfederal stakeholders that the government is fully committed to NGATS
because, in the past, the government has discontinued work on new
technologies for the national airspace system, including one technology
in which a nonfederal stakeholder had already invested.
Issuance of a New Space Exploration Policy and Creation of a New NASA
Office Addressed the Recommendation to Create a U.S. Space Imperative,
but May Negatively Affect Other NASA Programs:
The President's issuance of a national space exploration policy in
January 2004, which calls for the human exploration of the Moon and
Mars, and NASA's formation of a new mission directorate for space
exploration programs, address the Commission's recommendation to create
a U.S. space imperative. According to the Commission, the United States
is in danger of losing its global leadership in space exploration, in
large part because it lacks strong public advocacy for the nation's
space program, whereas foreign countries are aggressively pursuing
space exploration as a significant strategic and economic asset.
Experts believe that the President's space exploration policy and
NASA's new directorate address the Commission's concern. To achieve the
policy's objective, NASA formed the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate to consolidate separate exploration-related capabilities
within one organizational unit[Footnote 18] and thereby enhance their
cooperation. The new directorate conducted a study[Footnote 19] to
devise a plan for supporting the technologies and infrastructure needed
to meet the new space exploration policy. Released in November 2005,
the study recommended that NASA focus on the near-term activities
needed to complete the International Space Station and then focus on
the longer-term activities needed to implement its moon missions. The
centerpiece of the longer-term activities is a program to accelerate
the development of a new Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch
Vehicle, to replace the shuttle. The exploration directorate
restructured its programs and, as of fiscal year 2007, the three
programs under the exploration directorate will be the Constellation
Systems program,[Footnote 20] the Exploration Systems Research and
Technology program,[Footnote 21] and the Human Systems Research and
Technology program.[Footnote 22] NASA officials stated that research
and technology projects have been aligned to support the new space
exploration policy.
Figure 5: Proposed Cargo Launch Vehicle with Lunar Lander Is an Example
of Aerospace R&D:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NASA; John Frassanitio and Associates.
[End of figure]
Aerospace experts reported that they believe NASA's focus on
implementing the space exploration policy's goal of returning to the
Moon and sending human missions to Mars negatively affects other space
exploration projects that have significant scientific benefits. For
example, in the fiscal year 2007 budget request, NASA announced cuts
and delays in a number of projects in areas such as space crew health
research, electric propulsion systems, and weather-monitoring systems.
While experts and industry officials generally thought that NASA's
space exploration policy addresses the Commission recommendation, they
were concerned about the negative impact of this new policy on other
programs. For example, one expert noted that NASA's cancellation of
research projects that are not directly supporting the space
exploration programs has already negatively affected research efforts
at universities throughout the nation. With the loss of funding in
certain areas, this expert noted, many graduate students have lost
their grants and could potentially leave the aerospace field. Their
departure could have a long-term impact on the nation's future ability
to develop new technologies. In addition, a recent report by the
National Academy of Sciences that reviewed NASA's plans for science
programs over the next 5 years, concluded that NASA does not have the
necessary resources to carry out the tasks of completing the
International Space Station, returning humans to the Moon, sustaining
capabilities in aeronautical research, and maintaining space and Earth
science programs.[Footnote 23]
The President's High Growth Job Training Initiative Addresses
Recommendation on Promoting the Aerospace Workforce, but Questions
Remain about Its Impact:
Labor addressed the Commission's workforce recommendation to reverse
the decline and support the training of the aerospace workforce by
including the aerospace industry in the President's High Growth Job
Training Initiative.[Footnote 24] The initiative focuses on 14 high-
growth industries.[Footnote 25] Given estimates that 26 percent of the
aerospace industry workforce will be eligible for retirement by 2008,
the Commission was concerned about a loss of intellectual capital.
While the Commission was unable to agree on any immediate solution, it
maintained that U.S. policy must reaffirm the goal of stabilizing and
increasing the number of jobs in the industry. The training initiative
is a national grant program, started in 2003, that attempts to tailor
local workforce investment activities to reflect the workforce needs of
local employers. According to Labor officials, the aerospace industry
was selected in large part because of its significant impact on the
economy overall, as well as its impact on the growth of other
industries. A primary focus of the initiative is to address the
aerospace industry's aging workforce--with the subsequent loss of
institutional knowledge, experience, and technical talent--by
attracting young people into the field and building their skills. The
grants are provided to projects designed to address the industry's
aerospace workforce needs while also helping workers find employment
with good wages and career opportunities. For example, a number of
projects are geared toward expanding the number of youth interested in
aerospace and provide training for aerospace employment. As of June
2006, Labor had provided eight grants, totaling over $10 million, for
aerospace projects. (See table 2.)
Table 2: Grants Awarded by Labor for Aerospace Workforce Projects:
Recipient: Community Learning Center, Inc., Texas;
Purpose: To train aerospace workers for new high-technology
manufacturing processes;
Date awarded: June 2001;
Amount: $4,028,000[A].
Recipient: Brevard Community College, Florida;
Purpose: To provide hands-on learning opportunities for students to
develop technical aerospace skills and improve awareness of the skills
required for aerospace careers;
Date awarded: December 2004;
Amount: 99,000.
Recipient: Edmonds Community College, Washington;
Purpose: To develop an advanced aerospace technician curriculum, career
ladders, and distance learning approaches associated with the Boeing
787 supply chain;
Date awarded: December 2004;
Amount: 1,475,000.
Recipient: Florida Space Research Institute, Florida;
Purpose: To provide two aerospace mentors for 25 teachers in seven
Florida counties to improve hands-on knowledge and awareness of the
skills required for aerospace careers in Florida;
Date awarded: December 2004;
Amount: 356,000.
Recipient: Houston-Galveston Area Council for the Gulf Coast Workforce
Board, Texas;
Purpose: To reduce foreign visa worker dependency in several high
technology, high skill aerospace job occupations on the Texas Gulf
Coast;
Date awarded: December 2004;
Amount: 1,000,000.
Recipient: Enterprise-Ozark Community College, Alabama[B];
Purpose: To develop skilled aviation technicians in Alabama's aviation
industry corridor;
Date awarded: October 2005;
Amount: 1,637,000.
Recipient: Aerospace Development Corporation;
Purpose: To establish an aerospace workforce infrastructure that
identifies and develops strategic solutions to state-level challenges
in the five key aerospace states of Alabama, California, Colorado,
Florida, and Texas;
Date awarded: July 2005;
Amount: 1,899,000.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor information.
[A] The Community Learning Center, Inc. received two grants, which we
combined.
[B] This grant was awarded under the Community-Based Job Training grant
program, which is a competitive grant program that increases the
capacity of community colleges to train workers in key industries such
as the aerospace industry.
[End of table]
While the initiative addresses the Commission's recommendation to
promote the growth of the aerospace workforce, the experts with whom we
spoke questioned whether this program will have a significant impact.
One expert stated that, because the aerospace industry rapidly changes,
these types of job training programs are replacing skills that may run
the risk of becoming quickly outdated. Another expert said that, even
with these types of government training programs, the business cycle is
the major influence on the status of the aerospace workforce. As with
any other major industry, if there is not a strong demand for aerospace
products, companies will be hard pressed to provide enough jobs to
maintain a strong workforce. In commenting on a draft of this report,
Labor officials noted that this initiative is designed to model
innovative solutions and to leverage larger federal investment programs
and partnerships with industry, education providers, and other
stakeholders. Therefore, Labor officials believe that this initiative
will be able to respond to the aerospace industry's changing competency
and skill requirements. However, the initiative has not been evaluated,
so its impact is unknown.
Federal Agencies Have Established New Education Programs, but Concerns
Remain About Programs' Effectiveness:
Congress and federal agencies have addressed the Commission's
recommendation to invest in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) education by establishing a number of programs
designed to increase students' interest in STEM careers. The Commission
believes that STEM education at all levels, from kindergarten through
graduate school, needs government action and investment to ensure that
the aerospace industry has access to a scientifically and
technologically trained workforce. In 2005, we reported[Footnote 26]
that 13 federal civilian agencies[Footnote 27] spent about $2.8 billion
in fiscal year 2004 for 207 education programs designed to increase the
number of students and graduates, or to improve the educational
programs in STEM fields.[Footnote 28] Since 2004, a number of new STEM
education programs have been created. For example, the national Science
and Mathematics Access to Retain Talent (SMART) grant program was
created in 2006 to encourage students to enroll in STEM fields. This
program provides up to $4,000 for each of 2 academic years for students
in their third or fourth academic year of an undergraduate program at a
4-year degree-granting institution, who have maintained a cumulative
grade point average of 3.0 or above and meet the eligibility
requirements of the federal government's need-based Pell Grant
program.[Footnote 29] The Department of Education expects to provide
$790 million in SMART grants to over 500,000 students in academic year
2006-2007. In addition, under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
Congress established an Academic Competitiveness Council, chaired by
the Secretary of Education, to identify, evaluate, coordinate, and
improve federal STEM programs.[Footnote 30] This council is composed of
officials from federal agencies with responsibilities for managing
existing federal programs that promote STEM education. As mandated, the
council plans to identify all federal programs with a STEM focus,
identify the target populations, determine the effectiveness of these
programs, identify areas of overlap or duplication, and recommend ways
to efficiently integrate and coordinate the programs. Congress directed
the council to report its findings and recommendations by early 2007.
Finally, in 2006, the President announced the American Competitiveness
Initiative, which, over the next 10 years, would commit $50 billion to
increase funding for research and $86 billion for R&D tax incentives to
encourage innovation in science and technology, and to support math and
science education. While it does not specifically refer to aerospace,
the initiative calls for investing in key federal agency programs with
objectives that include encouraging up to 30,000 math and science
professionals to become adjunct high school teachers, creating a
research base to improve instructional methods and materials for
teaching math and science, and evaluating the impact of government-wide
investments in math and science education. [Footnote 31]
Although the federal government has spent billions of dollars on
education programs in STEM fields, concerns remain about the
effectiveness of the federal investment. For example, the reduction in
NASA's education budget will result in the elimination of long-standing
programs designed to reach education communities, both formal (e.g.,
students, teachers, education administrators, and institutions) and
informal (e.g., museums, planetariums, and community organizations).
Experts told us that, although the federal government is directing
significant amounts of funds to educational programs, the goals and
potential outcomes for the programs are unclear and decentralized,
thereby raising questions about whether the funding is providing the
most effective results. For example, we have reported[Footnote 32] that
fewer STEM education programs are targeted to elementary and secondary
school teachers and students than to other targeted groups--such as
graduate program students--even though a number of experts stated that
STEM programs for these teachers and students can have the greatest
benefits. The experts we interviewed believe that the focus should
start at the primary school level to have a better chance of
influencing students to seek careers in the aerospace industry.
Changes to Existing Programs Have Addressed Some Commission
Recommendations:
Agencies' efforts to revise strategies and procedures and to
restructure existing organizations have addressed some Commission
recommendations in the areas of aeronautics R&D, streamlining FAA
procedures, and increasing U.S. presence in international aviation;
however, experts and industry officials have emphasized that these
changes can negatively affect other programs or be limited by external
factors.
NASA's Aeronautics Program Focuses on Basic Research as Recommended by
the Commission, but Has Not Adopted Recommended Technology
Demonstration Goals:
NASA addressed the Commission's recommendations to focus on basic
research by restructuring the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
to give greater priority to fundamental research.[Footnote 33] However,
the Commission also recommended specific technology demonstration
goals, and the agency is moving away from demonstration projects that
showcase such goals. The Commission reported that U.S. industry might
fall behind foreign competitors in pioneering new aerospace technology
if U.S. R&D investments continued to downplay basic research and were
not focused on specific, breakthrough technology goals. To address this
challenge, the Commission recommended that the United States pursue
long-term basic research and specific technology demonstration goals.
NASA's restructured Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate includes
three research programs--Fundamental Aeronautics, Aviation Safety, and
Airspace Systems--that replace previous programs in Vehicle Systems,
Aviation Safety and Security, and Airspace Systems,
respectively.[Footnote 34] (See table 3.) Within the three research
programs, the most significant change occurred within what is now the
Fundamental Aeronautics program, which focuses on fundamental
aeronautics research rather than on development projects. Airspace
Systems' name remains unchanged, but it will now focus on NGATS and
JPDO's research needs. According to NASA, these programs give priority
to fundamental research that is applicable to a broad range of air
vehicles, whereas in the recent past NASA emphasized bringing specific
projects to higher technological maturity, often focusing on these
narrowly defined demonstration projects and not on developing
technology that would be transferable to other types of systems or
projects.[Footnote 35] NASA also has taken several actions to better
solicit input from academia and industry, with the goal of facilitating
the transfer of R&D to industry as a whole.[Footnote 36] For example,
NASA told us that as of August 2006, at least 110 universities had
submitted proposals in response to research announcements that it
issued in January 2006. In addition, the Commission recommended
technology demonstration goals, such as reducing aviation transit time
by 50 percent and engine emissions and noise by 90 percent, but NASA
does not plan to adopt these goals or alternative narrowly defined
technology demonstration goals, because its leadership believes that
pursuing them can lead to scientifically unjustified research projects.
For example, while the design for a vehicle could showcase one
particular goal, such as reducing emissions, this design could perform
poorly in another area, such as reducing engine noise. NASA leadership
believes that to overcome these types of conflicting design
requirements, NASA must use a more integrated approach, grounded in
fundamental research that cuts across its core disciplines such as
aerodynamics, acoustics, and combustion.
Table 3: Reshaped Strategy of NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate:
Previous program: Vehicle Systems;
New program: Fundamental Aeronautics;
New program's focus: Conduct long-term research in the core
competencies of aeronautics--such as propulsion, aerothermodynamics,
and materials--that are applicable to a broad range of subsonic (both
fixed-and rotary-wing), supersonic, and hypersonic air vehicles;
Major changes between previous and new programs: Program no longer
focuses on the development of narrowly defined technology demonstration
projects and directs attention to more fundamental research areas.
Previous program: Aviation Safety and Security;
New program: Aviation Safety;
New program's focus: Provide the capabilities and technologies needed
to increase aviation safety given the revolutionary changes expected in
air vehicles of the future. Work is "vehicle-centric" and focused on
the safety needs of NGATS;
Major changes between previous and new programs: Aviation security is
dropped from the research portfolio. If it continued this work, NASA
believes it would duplicate efforts now under way by the Department of
Homeland Security.
Previous program: Airspace Systems;
New program: Airspace Systems;
New program's focus: Develop future concepts, capabilities, and
technologies that enable major increases in air traffic effectiveness,
flexibility, and efficiency, as articulated for NGATS by JPDO;
Major changes between previous and new programs: Reshaped program
integrates formerly independent programs and is directly aligned with
supporting NGATS and JPDO.
Source: GAO analysis of NASA data.
[End of table]
NASA's restructuring of the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
matches the Commission's recommendation to emphasize basic research,
but reduced funding of demonstration projects might leave technologies
too underdeveloped for easy adoption by industry. While NASA's reshaped
strategy focuses more on basic research, as recommended by the
Commission, NASA has less funding for demonstration projects and
partnership projects with industry and academia. Experts commented that
these demonstration projects are an important mechanism for technology
transfer and in focusing on fundamental research, NASA will not be able
to develop new technologies to the same level of maturity as in the
past. NASA noted that it will continue to conduct flight test
demonstrations with other federal agencies, such as Defense. Our prior
work has found that technologies that have demonstrated a high level of
maturity are more likely to meet cost, schedule, and performance
requirements during product development. Similarly, our prior work and
several experts with whom we spoke indicated that, as a result,
industry would be less likely to further develop these new technologies
for commercial and government use and, therefore, for example,
implementation of NGATS could be delayed. While experts agreed that the
budget decline will negatively affect aeronautics R&D, they disagreed
about the importance of adopting the Commission's specific
demonstration goals. One expert stated that the Commission's
recommended demonstration goals are best interpreted as ideals for the
future, whereas another expert endorsed pursuing them. Still another
expert stated that focusing on basic research instead of demonstration
projects makes sense in the face of the directorate's declining budget,
since demonstration projects are expensive (see app. II for further
information on R&D funding). Finally, a recent study by the National
Academy of Sciences notes that declining budgets for aeronautic
research pose a challenge to civil aeronautics research, but recommends
that research should focus on strategic objectives, themes, and high-
priority research and technical challenges, regardless of funding
levels.[Footnote 37]
FAA's Modifications of Regulations and Procedures Address
Recommendations; however, External Factors Might Limit Further
Streamlining:
A variety of FAA actions have addressed the Commission's
recommendations to revise rule-making procedures and streamline airport
and runway development processes. These recommendations reflect the
Commission's concerns that lengthy rule-making procedures have delayed
the issuance of new rules and that delays in airport environmental
reviews for new runways have hindered efforts to enhance airport
capacity. FAA actions include conducting monthly briefings for senior
policymakers on significant rules, creating compensation incentives for
senior executives that are tied to the timely completion of rules, and
developing a performance standard that requires 80 percent of all
initiated rules to be cleared by the FAA Administrator within 90 days
of their originally scheduled completion date. Furthermore, DOT's Chief
of Staff and Deputy Secretary conduct quarterly meetings with the FAA
Administrator to review the status of each proposed rule. In addition,
to help expedite the process for airport development projects and
reduce the average of 10 years it takes to plan and build a new runway,
FAA is taking steps to streamline airport environmental
reviews.[Footnote 38] For example, FAA issued an order in April 2006 to
expedite reviews of airport projects that includes the ability to
prioritize the review of certain airport projects; promote public
review and comment; manage time lines during the review; and expedite
coordination between those federal, state, and local agencies involved
in airport environmental reviews in order to reduce undue delays during
the review process. In addition, to reduce delays in environmental
review work caused by insufficient staff, FAA is reallocating FAA staff
resources and increasing the use of consultants.
While some FAA actions have addressed the Commission's recommendations
to revise rule-making procedures and streamline environmental airport
reviews, we have reported that factors such as legal and policy
requirements and local politics might limit FAA's ability to further
streamline these procedures. In a 2003 analysis of 32 runway projects,
we noted significant challenges to reducing runway project delays,
including the difficulty of reaching consensus among stakeholders on
the need for runways; complying with numerous overlapping federal,
state, and local environmental laws; mitigating the impact of aircraft
noise on the surrounding community; and challenges faced during the
runway design and construction phase.[Footnote 39] Former commissioners
and experts supported our prior research. For example, one aerospace
expert said that legal requirements that apply to the rule-making
process, such as the requirement for periods of public comment, create
unavoidable delays. Another expert said that FAA is limited in its
ability to reduce the time it takes to issue rules because rules are
designed to ensure the safe operation of aircraft and public safety
considerations have to take priority over reducing the time it takes to
issue the rule. Some experts also said that FAA is limited in its
ability to further streamline new airport runway reviews. For example,
one expert noted that unavoidable delays often occur when local public
and political opposition to runway development leads to court
proceedings.
Agencies are Making Efforts to Address the Commission's Recommendation
to Increase U.S. Presence in International Aviation:
FAA and JPDO have made efforts to address the Commission's
recommendation to increase the U.S. commitment to the development of
global aviation standards and the establishment of international
partnerships for global air traffic management systems. The Commission
found that some foreign countries have established domestic standards
that provide a competitive advantage for those countries' national
companies, and although other governments have actively sought global
leadership in international standard-setting bodies, such as the
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO),[Footnote 40] the
United States has not devoted enough resources and is, therefore,
losing its position as the de facto standard setter. FAA has supported
several efforts to increase the U.S. commitment to, and involvement in,
the development of global aviation standards by increasing its presence
at ICAO. ICAO allocates positions within its organization to national
citizens from all its member organizations and currently has allocated
31 positions to the United States. To ensure that qualified U.S.
candidates apply for these positions, FAA has supported a number of
activities, including outreach efforts, incentive pay programs, and a
fellowship program. For example, FAA has conducted outreach efforts at
the staff level to increase awareness of international opportunities at
ICAO. Senior FAA officials have given speeches and presentations at
major agency functions, such as the Hispanic Coalition and the
Professional Women's Air Traffic Control Organization. In 2003, FAA
established the FAA/ICAO Fellowship Program, which sends FAA employees
to work at ICAO for up to 12 months. Since the FAA/ICAO Fellowship
Program started, six FAA employees have served as fellows and one of
these fellows was subsequently hired by ICAO as a full-time employee
for a 2-year position. JPDO has also worked to develop international
partnerships--including partnerships with China, East Asia, and Europe-
-to promote the global harmonization of air traffic management
systems.[Footnote 41] The goal is to harmonize equipment and operations
globally and advocate for the adoption of U.S.-preferred transformation
concepts, technologies, procedures, and standards. For example, JPDO
officials have noted the need to work toward harmonization with the
Single European Air Traffic Management Research Program (SESAR), a
major initiative to modernize the airspace system of the European
Union. In July 2006, FAA announced that it had signed a memorandum of
understanding with the European Union that identifies specific areas of
cooperation.[Footnote 42]
While FAA has made efforts to increase the U.S. presence at ICAO and
develop partnerships, the majority of U.S. positions at ICAO are still
unfilled, and in some areas, cooperation does not appear to be fully
developed. FAA faces difficulty in filling the allocated positions for
reasons beyond its control. For example, while FAA can recruit
applicants, it does not make the final hiring decision. Despite FAA's
efforts to fill the positions allocated to the United States at ICAO,
as of December 2005, only 13 of the 31 allocated positions were filled.
While FAA and JPDO are planning cooperative activities, our research
has identified several areas where coordination does not appear to be
fully developed. For example, we have reported that the SESAR and NGATS
initiatives, despite their similarities, do not have coordination
activities such as peer reviews of relevant research, cooperation on
safety analysis (such as through the pooling of accident data), or
validation of technologies.[Footnote 43] It is possible that greater
cooperation and exchange between NGATS and SESAR might develop once
planning has progressed to the development and validation stage.
Limited Streamlining of U.S. Export Control Licensing Procedures
Address the Commission's Recommendation; however, the Export Control
Policy Has Not Fundamentally Changed:
Some limited federal initiatives, primarily designed to streamline
export licensing procedures, address aspects of the Commission's
recommendation to reform regulations and policies to enable the
movement of goods across borders on a fully competitive basis.
According to the Commission, the current approach to U.S. export
control is counterproductive to national security interests and the
vitality of the U.S. aerospace industry. The Commission recommended
streamlining U.S. export licensing systems and reforming export control
policy. Commerce regulates exports of dual-use items--that is, items
with military and civilian uses--and the Department of State regulates
arms exports.[Footnote 44] There are many aerospace products, such as
commercial aircraft frames and components, which are designed for both
civilian and military uses and are therefore licensed as dual-use
items, while other aerospace products, such as precision-guided air-to-
surface missiles, are designed for military use and would be licensed
by State. State has implemented, through regulation and guidance,
initiatives primarily designed to streamline and expedite the
processing of export license applications. For example, in January
2004, State officially implemented a Web-based license application
submission and review system that allows companies to electronically
submit export authorization requests and supporting documentation for
review. In February 2005, we reported that, although State initially
received few applications through this system, officials noted greater
use of the system after 1 year as well as reduced median processing
times for electronically submitted export license
applications.[Footnote 45]
Although State has implemented initiatives to streamline the arms
export control licensing process, overall, the export control policy
has not undergone fundamental changes since the Commission published
its report. In 2005, we reported[Footnote 46] that, although the system
itself remains basically unchanged, new trends have emerged in the
processing of arms export cases.[Footnote 47] Median processing
times[Footnote 48] for all arms export cases declined between fiscal
year 1999 and fiscal year 2002, but began increasing in fiscal year
2003; this upward trend continued into the first 7 months of fiscal
year 2004. Furthermore, Commerce has not made fundamental changes to
the dual-use export control system.[Footnote 49] Attempts have been
made to change the legislation governing the U.S. export control system
since the Commission published its report, but none have resulted in
new export control legislation.[Footnote 50]
Federal Agencies Face Challenges in Addressing the Commission's
Recommendations:
Federal agencies will face a number of challenges in continuing to
address the Commission's recommendations. These challenges include
confronting difficult budgetary trade-offs and coordinating actions
between multiple agencies and industry. Specifically, our work, federal
officials, and industry experts indicated that budget constraints will
require agencies to prioritize some programs that address certain
recommendations at the expense of other programs. Furthermore,
according to experts, a lack of coordination between federal agencies,
private industry, and universities could impede the efficient
advancement of the aerospace industry.
Agencies Face Challenges in Setting Funding Priorities for Efforts That
Address Recommendations:
Budget constraints, in all likelihood, will challenge agencies' efforts
to address the Commission's recommendations, and require that some
programs that address certain recommendations be given priority over
other programs that address other recommendations.[Footnote 51] Such
budgetary trade-offs are all the more likely if implementing a
recommendation requires launching or expanding large, expensive
programs, such as the mission to Mars. Given the long-term fiscal
challenges facing the United States and other current spending
priorities that are unrelated to aerospace, it is unlikely that
significant new sources of funding will be available for these
programs, and overall departmental budgets may not expand.
Consequently, agency officials are likely to face tough decisions
prioritizing programs within their jurisdictions, and some programs
that address recommendations will likely be scaled back, delayed, or
cancelled. For example, the NASA Administrator testified in February
2006 that NASA cannot afford to fully fund all its programs. As a
result, NASA's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget shows lower funding
levels for a variety of areas such as aeronautics research and space
shuttle operations.
Within NASA, some programmatic realignment has already occurred in the
course of implementing programs that address the Commission's
recommendations, and, as a result, NASA has made some difficult
budgetary prioritization decisions. For example, as discussed earlier,
when NASA formed the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to pursue
the President's space policy, NASA aligned resources to complete the
International Space Station and accelerate the development of new space
vehicles to replace the space shuttle. In congressional testimony, the
NASA Administrator stated that this reallocation of resources requires
NASA to delay several NASA space science projects, and budget plans for
upcoming years reflect an increasing priority for space exploration
(see fig. 6).[Footnote 52] Former commissioners and experts told us
that, although NASA's space exploration activities are largely in line
with the Commission's recommendation to create a space imperative, the
resultant pull-back of NASA funds from other activities--like
aeronautics research, which is projected to decrease almost 30 percent
from $906 million in 2005 to $647 million (in 2005 dollars) in 2011, or
support for basic scientific research in aerospace at universities--was
having negative effects. Likewise, the recent study of civil
aeronautics research by the National Academy of Sciences notes that the
continued decline of aeronautics research funding will challenge NASA's
ability to conduct basic research needed for the future.[Footnote 53]
Figure 6: Projected Trends in Major Aerospace-Related Missions within
NASA, Fiscal Years 2005-2011:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of NASA's fiscal year 2007 Presidential Budget
Request.
Note: This figure excludes NASA's budget for cross-agency support
programs, such as education programs, and the Inspector General's
Office. Space operations includes funding for the space shuttle and
International Space Station. Exploration systems includes the budgets
for developing new space vehicles such as the Crew Launch Vehicle and
Crew Exploration Vehicle. Science includes funding for earth-sun, solar
system, and universe programs. Aeronautics research is the total budget
for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate.
[End of figure]
FAA and JPDO also face difficult budget prioritization questions that
are likely to challenge their ability to address the Commission's
recommendation to establish a new automated air traffic management
system. For example, JPDO faces challenges in providing Congress with
realistic cost estimates for the entire NGATS effort. While JPDO is
responsible for the planning of NGATS, the implementation of NGATS will
fall in large part to FAA. We reported[Footnote 54] that FAA faces
challenges in institutionalizing recent improvements in its management
and acquisition processes, as well as in obtaining the expertise and
resources needed to implement NGATS. We noted that transforming the
national airspace system while the current system continues to operate
will be an enormously complex undertaking, made more challenging by a
difficult budgetary environment. Going forward, efforts by both FAA and
JPDO to control costs and leverage resources will become ever more
critical. Success depends on the ability of FAA and JPDO to define
their roles and form a collaborative environment for planning and
implementing the next generation system.
Agencies Face Challenges in Coordinating Efforts to Avoid Duplication
and Inefficiency:
According to experts and our work, better coordination among federal
agencies, private industry, and universities could help advance the
aerospace industry by reducing duplicative efforts and leveraging
resources more efficiently. Such coordination is particularly important
for STEM funding and JPDO, both of which involve multiple agencies. As
previously discussed and as we reported in 2005, 13 federal civilian
agencies reported funding 207 education programs in fiscal year 2004 to
expand and improve STEM training.[Footnote 55] Additionally, experts
stated that, since these STEM programs are operated by the government
and are designed to meet the needs of the federal government, industry,
and research facilities, it is important that these key groups
coordinate to develop an overall strategy. However, as we reported,
there has been limited coordination between these programs. According
to our prior report and experts with whom we spoke, the current lack of
coordination is hindering improvements to STEM education.
JPDO also faces the challenge of coordinating with its partner agencies
in creating NGATS. According to our research, agencies must have a
clear and compelling rationale for working together to overcome
significant differences in their missions, cultures, and established
ways of doing business. JPDO's integrated plan, among other things,
provides a framework for institutionalizing collaboration among
multiple federal agencies. JPDO is fundamentally a planning and
coordinating body; therefore, it will be challenged to coordinate with
its partner agencies, in part, because those agencies have differing
missions and priorities. In addition, our work has shown that
collaborating agencies should work together to define and agree on
their respective roles and responsibilities, including how the
collaborative effort will be led.[Footnote 56] In JPDO's case, there is
no formalized, long-term agreement on the partner agencies' roles and
responsibilities in creating NGATS. According to JPDO officials, a
memorandum of understanding that would define partner agencies'
relationships was being developed, but has not been completed. It is
particularly important for JPDO and FAA's Air Traffic Organization to
define their respective roles and responsibilities, since both
organizations are involved in planning the national airspace system's
modernization and in coordinating the challenging transition from the
current air traffic control system to NGATS.
Concluding Observations:
Sustaining the nation's long-term commitment to science and technology-
-including aerospace science and technology--presents great
opportunities to improve the quality of life, the performance of the
economy, and the relationship of government to its citizens. Advances
in aerospace technology in the United States have historically been
fueled by combined public and private sector R&D, which have ensured
the United States a global leadership position in the aerospace
industry. However, a growing fiscal imbalance will require the nation
to decide what level of federal spending it wants--including funding of
aerospace R&D. Additionally, as other governments, such as the European
Union, increase the use of government resources to pursue global
leadership in the aerospace industry, the United States' preeminent
position is being challenged.
While Congress did not establish any requirements to implement the
Commission's recommendations, Congress and several federal agencies
have taken significant actions that begin to address many of them. If
Congress and federal agencies want to continue to address the
Commission's recommendations, it will require leadership from all
levels of government and the private sector. The establishment of JPDO
and the President's space exploration policy are two major actions
taken by the federal government, both of which will require the federal
government to maintain long-term funding commitments. Our prior work
has shown that one way to accomplish this is for federal agencies to
continue to form collaborative environments for planning and
implementing large cross-cutting programs such as NGATS. For example,
JPDO has already moved to leverage other federal agency resources by
conducting a review of its partner agencies' R&D programs to identify
ongoing work that could support NGATS. Our prior work has also shown
that the government's use of public-private partnerships can help to
focus limited resources in programs that could provide the greatest
benefit--both for the government and the private sector--and spread the
risk across multiple stakeholders. The Commission emphasized the goal
of developing stronger public-private partnerships, and some of the
most significant actions that address the Commission's recommendations
brought cross-government efforts together with industry to make
advances with positive results.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to Defense, DOT, Labor, NASA, and
OSTP for their review and comment. Labor and NASA provided written
comments (see apps. V and VI). DOT and OSTP provided technical
clarifications, which we incorporated into this report as appropriate.
Defense had no comments on the draft report.
In response to the report's description of comments by experts
concerning the President's High Growth Job Training Initiative, Labor
emphasized that this initiative is designed to demonstrate innovative
model solutions to these challenges, which may be leveraged and
replicated by the larger publicly funded workforce investment system.
The agency therefore believes that this approach will develop the
ability to respond to the industry's changing competency and skill
requirements. We revised the report to reflect Labor's viewpoint, but
point out that since the initiative has not been evaluated, its impact
is unknown.
NASA generally agreed with the report's contents, but provided several
clarifying comments. For example, NASA identified additional actions it
has taken that are aligned with Commission recommendations, such as
providing research grants to universities and NASA explained that it
will continue to conduct flight test demonstrations with other federal
agencies, such as Defense. We revised the report to include NASA's
other actions. In addition, NASA noted that its aeronautics research
budget is not projected to decline by 50 percent from fiscal year 2006
to fiscal year 2011, as stated in our report draft. We agree that 50
percent was an incorrect calculation and further agree with the budget
numbers stated in NASA's letter. However, to evaluate budget trends
over a number of years in real terms, we present budget numbers in the
report in inflation-adjusted dollars. Therefore, when converted into
2005 dollars, the proposed aeronautics research budget will decrease by
nearly 30 percent from $906 million in 2005 to $647 million (in 2005
dollars) in 2011. We corrected and clarified the report language.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 15 days
after the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to interested congressional committees, the Secretaries of Defense,
Labor, and Transportation; the Administrators of FAA and NASA; and the
Director of OSTP. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VII.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
In considering the recommendations made by the Commission on the Future
of the United States Aerospace Industry (the Commission), this report
addresses the following research questions: (1) To what extent have
federal agencies addressed selected Commission recommendations? (2)
What challenges remain in addressing these recommendations?
The 2002 report by the Commission contains nine broad recommendations,
each of which call for multiple actions by the federal
government.[Footnote 57] We selected six of these recommendations for
review. To assist us in our selection, we interviewed five of the
twelve former Commissioners--including the Commission's former Chair--
and the Commission's former executive director, to obtain their views
on the relative importance and potential impact of the recommendations.
Since each of the former Commissioners is an expert in specific
aerospace issues the Commission examined, we selected these former
Commissioners to ensure coverage of all Commission recommendations. The
six recommendations call for: (1) transforming the national air
transportation system, (2) creating a U.S. space exploration
imperative, (3) creating a government-wide management structure to
support a national aerospace policy, (4) establishing a level playing
field for the United States in global markets, (5) promoting the growth
of the U.S. aerospace workforce, and (6) increasing government
investment in aerospace research and development (R&D). We selected
these recommendations according to the degree to which they were viewed
as important by former Commission members and by us, and called for
measurable agency actions.
To address our two research questions, we obtained and analyzed
information from a variety of sources, including agency budget
documents, reports, policies, legislation, regulations, strategic
plans, briefings, and our own reports. We interviewed officials from
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the Departments of Defense
(Defense), Labor (Labor), and Transportation (DOT); the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). We also visited NASA's Dryden Flight
Research Center and Ames Research Center. In addition, we interviewed
officials from the Aerospace Industries Association, Boeing, and
Northrup Grumman to obtain their views on agency actions and
challenges. Finally, with the assistance of the National Academy of
Sciences, we identified 15 experts in the fields of air transportation,
space, aerospace policy and government structure, aerospace workforce
and education, and aerospace R&D. We interviewed these experts to
obtain their views on the extent to which the federal actions have
addressed the selected Commission recommendations, and on the
challenges that lie ahead. (Table 4 identifies the list of
participating experts.)
Table 4: Experts Providing Input during Our Review:
Expert: Dwight Abbott, General Manager (retired), Systems Engineering
Division, The Aerospace Corporation;
Area of expertise: * Space.
Expert: Bill Ballhaus, President and Chief Executive Officer, The
Aerospace Corporation;
Area of expertise: * Space.
Expert: Jack Fearnsides, Senior Strategic Consultant to the President,
Lockheed-Martin Air Traffic Management Company;
Area of expertise:
* Air transportation;
* Aerospace policy and government structure.
Expert: Mike Freeman, Vice President and Program Manager, Northrop
Grumman;
Area of expertise: * Air transportation.
Expert: Rich Golaszewski, Executive Vice President, GRA Incorporated;
Area of expertise:
* Air transportation;
* Aerospace R&D.
Expert: Bernard Grossman, Vice President for Education and Outreach,
The National Institute of Aerospace;
Area of expertise: * Aerospace workforce and education.
Expert: Hollis Harris, President and Chief Executive Officer (retired),
World Airways; Area of expertise: * Air transportation.
Expert: Preston Henne, Senior Vice President for Programs, Engineering,
and Test, Gulfstream;
Area of expertise: * Aerospace R&D.
Expert: John LaGraff, Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Syracuse University;
Area of expertise: * Aerospace workforce and education.
Expert: John McMasters, Technical Fellow, The Boeing Company;
Area of expertise: * Aerospace workforce and education.
Expert: George Muellner, Vice President and General Manager of Air
Force Systems for Integrated Defense Systems, The Boeing Company;
Area of expertise: * Space.
Expert: Bob Ravera, Consultant, RJR Aviation, LLC;
Area of expertise:
* Air transportation;
* Aerospace policy and government structure.
Expert: Dorothy Robyn, Senior Consultant, The Brattle Group;
Area of expertise: * Aerospace policy and government structure.
Expert: Annalisa Weigel, Professor, Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
Area of expertise:
* Aerospace policy and government structure;
* Aerospace R&D.
Expert: Dave Wisler, Manager of University Programs and Aero Technology
Labs, GE Aircraft Engines;
Area of expertise: * Aerospace workforce and education.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We did not analyze the validity of the Commission's recommendations,
and our work does not take a position on, or represent an endorsement
of, the recommendations, or the actions that address them. We conducted
our work from August 2005 through September 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Aerospace Research and Development Funding Trends:
Aerospace R&D includes a wide range of activities, from basic
scientific research to the development of new technologies in
increasingly diverse fields of study. Federal dollars continue to be a
significant contributor to U.S. aerospace R&D, but in recent years, the
federal role has declined relative to industry funding. The three major
federal agencies that support aerospace R&D--Defense, NASA, and FAA--
have different priorities and missions that are reflected in their
respective R&D portfolios. Defense's R&D budget is greater than any
other agency--with a large majority of its R&D funds supporting
development projects--and its R&D budgets for air and space R&D has
increased in recent years. NASA's current prioritization of space
exploration has driven R&D funding priorities, and under current plans
NASA will provide more funding for development activities than for
basic and applied research. Likewise, NASA's projected funding for
aeronautics research and science is in slight decline. FAA, with the
smallest R&D budget of the three agencies, focuses funding on the
development of the next generation air transportation system (NGATS),
but its R&D funding has also declined.
Aerospace R&D Includes a Wide Range of Activities:
Aerospace R&D includes a wide range of activities such as basic
research, applied research, and development. Basic research works to
expand fundamental knowledge in areas such as physics, chemistry, and
mathematics without specific applications in mind; however, it may
include activities with broad applications. Applied research aims to
gain knowledge applicable to solving specific and identified needs,
building on the general work of the basic sciences. Applied aerospace
research includes activities to develop better propulsion and power
technology, advanced spacecraft technology, and crew and personnel
protection technology. Development projects use the knowledge and
understanding developed by researchers to build new, or improve
existing, systems. New military weapons systems, a replacement for the
space shuttle, and new commercial aircraft are all examples of major
development projects.
Increasingly, R&D in areas not traditionally associated with aerospace,
such as computer software, has applicability to the sector. At the same
time, long-established areas for aerospace research may bring benefits
to other economic sectors. For example, advances in software might
benefit new flight control systems and have applications to banking, or
new ceramic materials developed for airplanes might be used in
automobiles. Researchers do not always know beforehand where the
results of their work will find useful applications. This uncertainty
is particularly characteristic of basic research that, by definition,
is not motivated by possible applications. Consequently, it is
difficult to estimate the range of R&D activities that have an impact
on the aerospace industry.
Federal Support of R&D Remains Critical to the Aerospace Industry:
The federal government's support of R&D has been critical to
maintaining the nation's global leadership in the aerospace industry.
For example, government-supported research enabled the development of
jet engine technologies that helped U.S. commercial and military
aircraft manufacturers achieve global prominence. According to industry
statistics, aerospace companies are funding an increasing portion of
industrial R&D than they did in the past.[Footnote 58] In fiscal year
2003, the most recent year for which data are available, federal funds
supported 48 percent of industry R&D in the aerospace industry, whereas
in 1999 the federal share was 63 percent. Nevertheless, the federal
role remains significant.
Industrial R&D tends to focus on technology development that is
specific to individual company products. As a result, company funding
is significantly lower for basic and applied research than for
development. According to aerospace industry statistics, federal
dollars fund the majority of the basic and applied research performed
by the aerospace industry, whereas most development is funded by
companies themselves. In dollar terms, development expenditures, by
both companies and the federal government, are much higher than
research expenditures. Nonetheless, federal funds provide the dominant
share of applied research support, in particular. Aerospace industry
experts told us that, if industry is to benefit from federally funded
basic and applied research, new technologies must be developed to a
relatively high level to be easily applied to product development.
Likewise, our prior work has found that technologies with a high level
of maturity are more likely to be applied successfully to product
development projects. An individual company is unlikely to invest its
own money in basic and applied research that offers uncertain payoffs
and might benefit competitors.
Objectives of Federal Funding for Aerospace R&D Differ by Agency and
Mission:
R&D funding levels differ by agency and mission. The primary federal
agencies engaged in aerospace R&D are Defense, NASA, and, to a lesser
extent, FAA. Defense accounts for the majority of aerospace R&D
funding.
Department of Defense:
Like Defense's budget in general, Defense's overall R&D budget has
increased in recent years and is the largest federal supporter of
R&D.[Footnote 59] Its current modernization effort is driving increases
in R&D expenditures for developing major weapons systems, including
aviation, missile, and space systems. In 2005, with a budget of $8.1
billion, the ballistic missile defense program was the largest R&D
program in Defense--nearly more than twice the budget of the Joint
Strike Fighter, the second largest program. The Aeronautics and Space
Report of the President estimates Defense's budget for space activities
in fiscal year 2006 at $22.7 billion--over $7 billion more than NASA's.
Within Defense's R&D budget are funds for science and technology
activities. These fund R&D that is typically not associated with
specific weapons systems and potentially can benefit a wide range of
military and civilian applications.[Footnote 60] Since 2001, Defense's
science and technology budget has increased for both air and space
activities (see fig. 7).
Figure 7: Defense Budget for Science and Technology for Air and Space
Platforms, Fiscal Years 2001-2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Defense data.
Note: Fiscal year 2005 is the latest year for which these data are
available.
[End of figure]
Like industry-funded R&D, defense R&D tends to focus on advanced stages
of development rather on than basic or applied research. As a result,
Defense's outlays for basic and applied research account for less than
10 percent, or $6.3 billion, of its total outlays for R&D in fiscal
year 2005. Conversely, $63 billion went to development activities. For
example, $8.2 billion of the Missile Defense Agency's $8.8 billion R&D
budget for fiscal year 2005 went to development activities, not to
basic or applied research. Nevertheless, Defense remains a significant
supporter of basic and applied research, with Defense support climbing
between fiscal years 2001 and 2006. (See fig. 8.) However, current
plans call for a decline in fiscal year 2007.
Figure 8: Defense Budget Authority for Basic and Applied Research, and
for Development, Fiscal Years 1999-2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of Defense budget documents.
Note: Defense funding data are not specific to aerospace activities.
Fiscal year 2007 data come from the President's proposed budget; 2006
data are estimated outlays.
[End of figure]
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NASA's R&D includes a broad range of complex and technical activities-
-from space exploration to scientific observations of the solar system
to the development of new aviation technologies, including those needed
for NGATS. According to the President's proposed fiscal year 2007
budget and NASA's current plans, space exploration activities,
including R&D, will continue to be the largest part of NASA's budget in
the future. This trend will be driven by the development of a
replacement vehicle for the space shuttle, manned lunar exploration,
and robotic and manned Mars exploration missions. In contrast, funding
for aeronautics research and some space and earth science research
within NASA will decline until fiscal year 2011 (see fig. 9).
Figure 9: Actual and Projected Funding Trends in Major Aerospace-
Related Missions within NASA, Fiscal Years 2005-2011:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request
for NASA.
Notes: Space operations includes the space shuttle, International Space
Station, and flight support. Exploration systems includes the budgets
for developing new space vehicles, such as the Crew Launch Vehicle and
Crew Exploration Vehicle. Science includes earth-sun, solar system, and
universe programs. Aeronautics research is the total budget for the
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate.
Fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 are actual funding amounts.
[End of figure]
Like NASA's budget overall, the agency's R&D funding is relatively
stable, but current space exploration plans call for a shift toward
more development and less research. Consequently, NASA's funding for
basic and applied research has been declining while its funding for
development has increased (see fig. 10).
Figure 10: NASA's Budget Authority for Basic and Applied Research, and
for Development, Fiscal Years 1999-2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of budget documents.
[End of figure]
Federal Aviation Administration:
The major focus of FAA's R&D is the realization of NGATS. The new
system requires work in multiple areas, and several R&D programs are
currently under way. However, FAA's R&D budget has generally declined
since the publication of the Commission's report in 2002, because some
programs have been completed and new NGATS projects have not taken
their place (see fig. 11).[Footnote 61] For example, R&D on Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B)[Footnote 62] was completed in
2006, and no additional funding was sought for this program for fiscal
year 2007. In addition, FAA's R&D budget includes projects that are not
related to NGATS, such as aviation safety projects pertaining to
weather and aircraft aging. FAA classifies a large proportion of its
R&D as part of facilities and equipment activities.[Footnote 63] This
R&D includes a program to reduce runway incursions, the Capstone
program[Footnote 64] in Alaska, and several airspace programs, to name
a few. Compared with Defense's and NASA's R&D activities, FAA's are
small.
Figure 11: FAA Outlays for R&D, Including R&D for Facilities and
Equipment, Fiscal Years 1999-2007:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of FAA data.
Note: Facilities and equipment data include outlays for the airport
improvement program and space commercialization R&D.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Federal Actions That Address Selected Aerospace
Commission Recommendations:
This appendix provides additional details on selected Commission
recommendations and federal agency actions that address them. Included
below are descriptions of the Commission's main recommendations and
subrecommendations that we selected for review, as noted in appendix I.
Also provided are descriptions of key federal agency actions, with time
frames, that address both the main recommendations and the
subrecommendations of the Commission report.
Recommendation: The Commission recommends the transformation of the
U.S. air transportation system as a national priority. The
transformation requires the:
* rapid deployment of a new, highly automated air traffic management
system, beyond FAA's Operational Evolution Plan, robust enough to
efficiently, safely, and securely accommodate an evolving variety and
growing number of aerospace vehicles, and civil and military
operations;
* accelerated introduction of new aerospace systems by shifting from
product to process certification, and providing implementation support;
and:
* streamlined new airport and runway development.
Subrecommendation: The federal government should develop a federal
interdepartmental group to work collaboratively with industry, labor,
and other stakeholders, to plan a new, highly automated air traffic
management system.
Federal Action:
* In December 2003 legislation, Congress directed DOT to create the
Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO) as an office within the
FAA. The purpose of JPDO is to plan for the transition to NGATS and to
coordinate aviation and aeronautics research programs across federal
agencies. By January 2004, JPDO was established in FAA. Agencies
participating in JPDO include the Departments of Commerce (Commerce)
and Homeland Security (Homeland Security), DOT, FAA, NASA, Defense, and
OSTP. The legislation also called for JPDO to consult with the public
and ensure the participation of experts from the private sector.
* In December 2004, JPDO delivered to Congress the Integrated National
Plan, which established a vision for the national air transportation
system and a framework within JPDO for accomplishing that vision. The
plan also established multi-agency integrated product teams responsible
for each of eight strategies--airport infrastructure, security, an
agile air traffic system, shared situational awareness, safety
management, environment, weather, and global harmonization. In
addition, a JPDO Senior Policy Committee made up of executive-level
individuals from all partner agencies was established to provide high-
level guidance, resolve major policy issues, and identify resource
needs.
Resources provided to JPDO by FAA and NASA:
FAA:
* FAA provided $18 million in fiscal year 2006 to support JPDO and will
provide a similar amount of funds in fiscal year 2007.
* FAA leads four of JPDO's integrated product teams and provides
approximately 90 employees to support JPDO and the product teams.
* In the President's 2007 budget submission, DOT requested $80 million
for Automated Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B), which is a
surveillance technology that transmits an aircraft's identity,
position, velocity, and intent to other aircraft and to air traffic
control systems on the ground, thereby enabling pilots and controllers
to have a common picture of airspace and traffic. DOT also requested
$24 million for the System Wide Information Network, which would
support the transition to network-centric operations by providing the
infrastructure and associated policies and standards to enable
information sharing among all authorized users, such as the airlines,
other government agencies, and the military.
NASA:
* NASA provided $18 million in fiscal year 2006 to support JPDO and
will provide a similar amount of funds in fiscal year 2007.
* NASA's fiscal year 2006 NGATS contributions total $174 million (for
Airspace Systems research). NASA requests for future NGATS air traffic
management research funding are:
- Fiscal year 2007: $120 million:
- Fiscal year 2008: $124 million:
- Fiscal year 2009: $105 million:
- Fiscal year 2010: $91 million:
* NASA's Aviation Safety Program and Subsonic Fixed Wing project also
contribute to NGATS research. This program and this project also
provide benefits to other federal agencies and private industry beyond
specific NGATS research needs.
Subrecommendation: The federal government should develop initial
implementation efforts that should focus on changing those federal
policies and procedures, such as navigation and surveillance systems,
that will provide early and significant operational benefits with
little or no added "out-of-pocket" investments.
Federal Action:
* In 2002, FAA committed to develop and implement a plan for
performance- based navigation, which uses two concepts--"Area
Navigation," commonly known as RNAV, and required navigation
performance (RNP) operations. RNAV allows operators of properly
equipped aircraft to use onboard navigation capabilities to fly desired
flight paths without requiring direct flight over ground-based
navigation aids. RNP adds to RNAV by taking advantage of the aircraft's
avionics navigation performance- monitoring and alerting capability. By
potentially allowing users to fly shorter routes, RNAV and RNP hold
promise to reduce flight times and fuel consumption; this would, in
turn, save system users time and money. In addition, RNP could
potentially increase the capacity of the air traffic control system to
handle air traffic by reducing the required distance (i.e., separation)
between aircraft equipped with advanced navigation capabilities.
* FAA published a plan in 2003 (updated in July 2006) that lays out
milestones for RNAV and RNP implementation over three planning
horizons: near-term (2006-2010), mid-term (2011-2015), and far-term
(2016-2025). For example, a near-term milestone is to develop 25 RNP
approaches per year over the next 5 years.
* In June 2005, FAA published criteria for use in designing public RNP
instrument approach procedures and, as of August 2006, FAA runs RNP
procedures in Washington, D.C. (Reagan National Airport); San
Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon; Palm Springs, California; and
Juneau, and six smaller city airports, in Alaska. FAA has also
published standard RNP procedures for Hailey (Sun Valley), Idaho;
Newark, New Jersey; Chicago (Midway), Illinois; Long Beach, California;
Tucson, Arizona; and Gary, Indiana, and expects to be using the new
published RNP procedures at these six additional airports later this
year, as more aircraft operators become approved for RNP approaches.
* FAA has installed and tested ADS-B technology on a limited basis in
aircraft since 2000 in a demonstration program in Alaska called
Capstone, which is a program intended to improve aviation system safety
in Alaska through the introduction of new navigation technologies. In
addition, FAA has been running ADS-B procedures in the Gulf of Mexico,
and at airports in Louisville, Kentucky, and Memphis, Tennessee.
* In September 2005, FAA executives reviewed information on investment
and alternatives for the ADS-B program and approved the technology for
a more thorough analysis for possible future deployment on a national
basis. In the first half of 2006, FAA will analyze specific costs and
benefits for implementing the technology and submit a final proposal
for FAA executive-level review in June 2006. With a positive investment
decision, the first ADS-B implementation segment envisions the
potential deployment of approximately 400 ground-based transmitters and
the implementation of terminal, en route, and broadcast ADS-B services
from fiscal years 2007-2012.
Figure 12: Global Positioning System Display Screen Used in Capstone
Program:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Garmin, Ltd.
[End of figure]
Sub-recommendation: FAA should support and motivate efforts for the
installation of system-critical airborne equipment by providing either
full or partial federal funding, or by auctioning investment credits,
for such equipment.
Federal Action:
* In 1999, the Capstone program received initial funding. This first
phase focused on providing advanced navigation capability and equipment
for aircraft operating air taxi services in southwest Alaska. By 2004,
FAA had installed 11 ground-based navigation transmitters and equipped
208 aircraft with Capstone avionics capabilities, such as ADS-B. The
Capstone program includes full funding for operator equipage.
* In 2003, Capstone phase II expanded the program to air taxi aircraft
in southeast Alaska and included similar navigation capabilities and
full funding for operator equipage. As of June 2006, the FAA has a
total of 366 aircraft in the Capstone program.
* A September 2004 plan for phase III of Capstone calls for expanding
Capstone throughout Alaska. The plan proposed $25 million per year
through fiscal year 2007 for reimbursements to pilots who paid for
Capstone equipment and installation. A final decision on Capstone phase
III is expected by the end of summer 2006.
Sub-recommendation: The federal government should streamline the
regulatory process to enable timely development of regulations needed
to address new technologies.
Federal Action:
* FAA uses several approaches to streamline the regulatory process for
new technologies:
- FAA sometimes uses a "special condition" to approve new technology
under an existing rule. For example, FAA issued a new standard on the
existing type of certificate for a general aviation aircraft to allow a
parachute to be deployed as a last resort in an emergency. The
parachute recovery system is intended to prevent serious passenger
injuries by parachuting the aircraft to the ground.
- FAA sometimes uses existing regulations without a special condition
and publishes new methods of compliance for the new technology. The
methods are neither mandatory nor regulatory but describe acceptable
means for showing compliance with regulations. For example, in December
2005, FAA published an advisory circular on the acceptable means for
showing compliance for the use of "synthetic vision" developed by the
military.
* FAA has also developed new procedures that apply to all rule making,
including rules for new technologies. Highlights include the following:
- In 2003, FAA supplemented its weekly management review of ongoing
rule making with a standing meeting of senior policy makers to review
significant rules in order to expedite their review. It also gave a
higher priority to nonsignificant rules that had gone through the
public comment stage.
- In 2004, to link rule-making performance with pay, FAA created shared
executive compensation incentives for senior executives that are tied
to timely completion of rules.
- In 2005, FAA adopted a performance standard that requires 80 percent
of all initiated rules to be issued within 90 days of their originally
scheduled issuance date.
Subrecommendation: FAA should focus on certifying a manufacturing
organization's internal design, simulation, testing, and quality
assurance processes to ensure that organizations' products comply with
all applicable regulations, and are delivered in a condition for safe
operation.
Federal Action:
* In October 2005, FAA issued a final rule for a new Organization
Designation Authorization. This program expands the number of
organizational designees and should ultimately reduce the number of
individual designees. FAA's designee programs authorize about 13,400
private individuals and about 180 organizations nationwide, known as
"designees," to act as representatives of the agency to conduct many
safety certification activities, such as administering flight tests to
pilots, inspecting repair work by maintenance facilities, conducting
medical examinations of pilots, and approving designs for aircraft
parts. The program allows FAA to expand and standardize the approval
functions of organizational designees and also expand eligibility for
organizational designees. FAA issued a final order for the rule in
2006.
* In addition, Congress has mandated that FAA develop and implement a
certified design organization program. Under this program, certain
designees that design and produce aircraft parts and equipment would no
longer be designees; rather, they would conduct their approval
functions under a newly created FAA certificate. FAA expects to provide
a report to Congress, by the mandated December 2007 deadline, for the
development and oversight of a system to certify design organizations.
Subrecommendation: FAA and other agencies should adopt regulations or
procedures that would expedite new runway and airport development.
Federal Action:
* FAA is reallocating staff resources and increasing the use of
consultants to assist it with the coordination and administration of
environmental impact statements.
* To increase coordination and reduce delays, FAA has created a process
for establishing multidisciplinary environmental review teams for new
reviews at large hub airports.
* In April 2006, FAA completed a revised order for streamlining airport
development projects that includes the ability to give priority review
to certain projects; promotes public review and comment; manages
timelines during the review; and expedites coordination between those
federal, state, and local agencies involved in environmental reviews in
order to reduce undue delays during the review process.
* To increase coordination and assign accountability for new runway
construction tasks, FAA is using detailed plans called Runway Template
Action Plans to provide a standard set of tasks that must be considered
when developing new runways (FAA developed the tool in August 2001).
Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the United States create
a space imperative. Defense, NASA, and industry must partner in
innovative aerospace technologies, especially in areas of propulsion
and power. These innovations will enhance national security, provide
major spin-offs to the economy, accelerate the exploration of the near
and distant universe with both human and robotic missions, and open up
new opportunities for public space travel and commercial space
endeavors in the twenty-first century.
Subrecommendation: Explore and exploit space to ensure national and
planetary security, economic benefit, and scientific discovery.
Federal Action:
* In January 2004, Executive Order 13326 established the President's
Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy.
This commission was chartered to provide recommendations to the
President on implementing the vision outlined in the President's policy
statement entitled "A Renewed Spirit of Discovery," and the President's
budget submission for fiscal year 2005. The commission published its
report in June 2004.
* In 2004, NASA formed the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate to
implement the President's vision. Throughout 2005, the directorate
restructured its organization by reducing headquarters staff,
designating program and project offices at NASA centers, and realigning
activities to other mission directorates.
* Defense published its space science and technology strategy in 2004.
This strategy, which provides guidance for Defense space science and
technology activities, is derived jointly from the Defense Science and
Technology Strategy and the National Security Space Strategy. The
strategy addresses space science and technology development, outlines
strategy implementation, describes the process by which space science
and technology progress is assessed, and identifies the means by which
these goals can be achieved.
* In August 2005, Defense and NASA signed an agreement on how they
could coordinate their efforts to implement NASA's space transportation
strategy. The agreement focused on the use and development of national
launch systems.
* In November 2005, to assist in implementing the President's space
exploration policy, NASA published its Exploration Systems Architecture
Study. The purpose of the study was to:
- assess the top-level crew exploration vehicle requirements,
- define the top-level requirements and configurations for crew and
cargo launch systems to support the lunar and Mars exploration
programs,
- develop a reference exploration architecture concept to support
sustained human and robotic lunar exploration operations, and:
- identify key technologies required to enable and significantly
enhance these reference exploration systems, and reprioritize near-term
and far-term technology investments.
* On the basis of analysis and recommendations, NASA realigned research
and technology projects. As a result, some programs were curtailed,
modified, deferred, or added.
* NASA and DOD established the Partnership Council to provide a forum
for senior Defense and civil space leaders to meet on a regular basis
to discuss cross-cutting issues relevant to the national space
community. The purpose of the Partnership Council is to facilitate
communication between the organizations and to identify areas for
collaboration and cooperation.
Figure 13: Information Regarding the Moon and Mars:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NASA.
[End of figure]
Subrecommendation: The federal government should support the
development of commercial space operations, such as space tourism.
Federal Action:
* FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation regulates the U.S.
commercial space transportation industry by licensing commercial space
launches and nonfederal spaceports. Commercial space operations have
historically launched commercial or government payloads (generally
satellites) into orbit from Air Force launch sites. The industry is
changing with the development of commercial vehicles that enable human
space flight from nonfederal spaceports. FAA is developing regulations
for launch vehicles and spaceports. The proposed regulations, based on
common safety standards developed jointly by FAA and the Air Force,
have the goal of promoting consistent, streamlined safety reviews of
launch and reentry operations at all launch sites.
* The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 prohibits FAA from
regulating crew and passenger safety before 2012 in order to encourage
growth in the emerging space tourism industry.
Figure 14: Proposed Advanced Orbital Transfer Propulsion Technology:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NASA.
[End of figure]
Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the federal government
establish a national aerospace policy and promote aerospace by creating
a government-wide management structure. This would include a White
House policy coordinating council, an aerospace management office in
the Office of Management and Budget, and a joint committee in Congress.
The Commission further recommends the use of an annual aerospace sector
budget to establish presidential aerospace initiatives, ensure
coordinated funding for such initiatives, and replace vertical decision
making with horizontally determined decisions in both authorizations
and appropriations.
Subrecommendation: Develop a process to bring the appropriate
departments and agencies together to reach a consensus on a national
aerospace policy.
Federal Action:
* In January 2004, the President announced the Vision for Space
Exploration, which serves as the nation's space exploration policy.
This policy directs NASA to advance U.S. scientific, security, and
economic interests through a space exploration program.
* In December 2004, the administration approved the U.S. Space
Transportation Policy. This policy's goal was to ensure the capability
to access and use space. It sets out implementation guidelines and
actions for federal departments and agencies, including NASA, Defense,
and DOT.
* In September 2005, the National Science and Technology Council
established the Aeronautics, Science, and Technology Subcommittee
(ASTS). (See fig. 15.) The objective of ASTS is to develop a national
aeronautics R&D policy. This policy is expected to establish a set of
specific U.S. aeronautics research objectives; define the appropriate
role of the federal government in aeronautics R&D; define the roles and
responsibilities of the various departments and agencies in aeronautics
R&D; address the research, development, test, and evaluation
infrastructure; and address the coordination of aeronautics research
across the federal government.
- In April 2006, ASTS convened three stakeholder meetings to discuss
aeronautics R&D priorities, the appropriate role of the federal
government, near-and far-term research objectives and a plan to achieve
them, and the roles and responsibilities of the multiple federal
agencies involved in aeronautics research. Representatives from
government, industry, the aviation user community, and academia
participated.
- ASTS is co-chaired by OSTP and NASA, and includes the Department of
Energy, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, DOT, FAA, JPDO, the
National Science Foundation, the Council of Economic Advisors, the
Domestic Policy Council, the U.S. Trade Representative, U.S.
International Trade Commission, the Office of the Vice President, the
National Security Council, and the Office of Management and Budget.
ASTS is working on renewing its charter, which will expire on December
31, 2006. The renewed charter would expire on March 31, 2009.
* In December 2005, Congress directed OSTP to commission an independent
review of the nation's long-term strategic needs for aeronautics test
facilities. Congress also required OSTP to conduct a study to determine
(1) if any NASA R&D programs are unnecessarily duplicating aspects of
programs of other federal agencies; and (2) if any such programs are
neglecting any topics of national interest that are related to NASA's
mission.
Figure 15: ASTS Membership:
[See PDF for image]
Sources: Corel Draw; GAO.
[End of figure]
Subrecommendation: Establish an office of aerospace development in each
federal department and agency, and have a full-time senior executive
lead the office and report directly to the office of the secretary, or
the agency head.
Federal Action:
* No action taken.
Subrecommendation: Congress should establish a Congressional Joint
Committee on Aerospace that would have the obligation to legislatively
coordinate the multifaceted jurisdiction issues.
Federal Action:
* No action taken.
Subrecommendation: Establish an Aerospace Policy Coordinating Council
to develop and implement an integrated means of formulating a national
aerospace policy.
Federal Action:
* As of January 2006, no single national aerospace policy existed.
There are two policy efforts in place to address space and aeronautics
issues separately.
* The National Security Council has drafted space policies that address
the major space sectors such as position, navigation, and timing;
commercial remote sensing; and space transportation.
* OSTP and NASA are co-chairing the Aeronautics Subcommittee of the
National Science and Technology Council to coordinate U.S. aeronautics
research and development activities.
Subrecommendation: Have the Office of Management and Budget assume a
new and proactive role as coordinator of federal agencies' aerospace-
sector plans, programs, and budgets.
Federal Action:
* No action taken.
Recommendation: The Commission recommends that U.S. and multilateral
regulations and policies be reformed to enable the movement of products
and capital across international borders on a fully competitive basis,
establishing a level playing field for U.S. industry in the global
marketplace. This includes substantially overhauling U.S. export
control regulations. The Commission also recommends that the U.S.
government neutralize foreign-government market intervention in areas
such as subsidies, tax policy, export financing, and standards--either
through strengthening multilateral disciplines or providing similar
support for U.S. industry as necessary.
Subrecommendation: The U.S. government should reform the nation's arms
transfer policy and regulatory process.
Federal Action:
* In February 2002, Congress had two bills before it --H.R. 2581 and S.
149--that proposed a new legal basis for controls over exports of dual-
use goods and services. Neither bill was passed.
* H.R. 4572 was introduced on December 16, 2005. This bill, which
sought to extend the Export Administration Act, among other items,
would have revised this act, especially in the areas of penalties,
enforcement, and U.S. policy towards multilateral export control
regimes. No action has been taken on this bill as of September 2006.
Subrecommendation: The U.S. government should overhaul current export-
control restrictions on the sale or transfer of technology to foreign
customers by implementing a fundamental shift--from the existing
transaction-based licensing system to process licensing.
Federal Action:
* In 2001, the Department of State (State) and Defense established an
"expedited" process for reviewing license applications in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
* In 2000, State announced the Defense Trade Security Initiative, which
was characterized as the first major post-Cold War adjustment to the
arms export control system and an effort to facilitate defense trade
with allies. As part of this effort, State established special
processes for the expedited review of license applications determined
to be in support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Defense
Capabilities Initiative. In addition, State developed the D-Trade
system, which came on line in January 2004. This is a Web-based license
application submission and review system that allows companies to
electronically submit export authorization requests and supporting
documentation for review.
Subrecommendation: The U.S. government should ensure commitment to
global partnerships in air transportation systems and space activities
by supporting the recruitment of FAA employees for the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
Federal Action:
* FAA established a Web site to increase employees' awareness of ICAO
positions.
* FAA tracks ICAO vacancies and solicits qualified candidates to fill
the U.S. positions.
* In 2003, FAA established the FAA/ICAO fellowship program, which sends
FAA employees to work at ICAO for up to 12 months.
* Senior FAA officials give speeches and presentations at FAA
organizations such as the Hispanic Coalition and the Professional
Women's Air Traffic Control Organization.
Subrecommendation: The U.S. government should ensure commitment to
global partnerships in air transportation systems and space activities
by working for continued liberalization of the air transport market.
Federal Action:
* As of July 2006, the United States had 76 "open skies" agreements
with foreign governments. "Open skies" agreements are bilateral
agreements between two nations that reduce or eliminate operating
restrictions on the airlines of either nation.
Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the nation immediately
reverse the decline in, and promote the growth of, a scientifically and
technologically trained U.S. aerospace workforce. In addition, the
nation must address the failure of the math, science, and technology
education of Americans. The breakdown of America's intellectual and
industrial capacity is a threat to national security and its capability
to continue as a world leader. Congress and the administration must
therefore do the following:
* Create an interagency task force that develops a national strategy on
the aerospace workforce to attract public attention to the importance
of, and opportunities within, the aerospace industry.
* Establish lifelong learning and individualized instruction as key
elements of educational reform.
* Make long-term investments in education and training with a major
emphasis in math and science so that the aerospace industry has access
to a scientifically and technologically trained workforce.
Subrecommendation: Establish an interagency task force on workforce
issues in the aerospace industry.
Federal Action:
* In 2004, Labor established an interagency taskforce that included the
Department of Education, Commerce, Defense, DOT, NASA, OSTP, the
National Science Foundation, and the Office of Management and Budget.
* Labor hosted the Aerospace Workforce Forum in June 2004. This forum
included stakeholders representing industry, education, and government
agencies with the objective of involving the public in developing
solutions that address the decline in the U.S. technical workforce. The
forum developed multiple recommendations to address the overall
workforce issues. These recommendations focused on the aging workforce
and the loss of technical talent.
* In 2005, the House passed H.R. 758, a bill that will require federal
agencies to establish an interagency aerospace revitalization task
force to develop a national strategy for aerospace workforce
recruitment, training, and cultivation. The bill proposes that the task
force meet at least twice a year and produce an annual report no later
than 1 year after the date of the act's enactment, and annually
thereafter for 4 years. As of September 2006, no action has been taken
on this bill in the Senate.
Subrecommendation: Develop a national strategy to attract public
attention to the importance of, and opportunities within, the aerospace
industry.
Federal Action:
* In collaboration with the private sector, educational institutions,
and local employment agencies, Labor issued a 2005 report on workforce
challenges facing the aerospace industry and possible solutions to
these challenges.
* The President's High Growth Job Training Initiative targets 14
industries, including aerospace, that have been identified as important
to the U.S. workforce.
* H.R. 758, described previously in this appendix, would also require
federal agencies to develop a national strategy for aerospace workforce
development.
Subrecommendation: Develop workforce skills needed by the industry and
promote registered apprenticeship programs for technical and skilled
occupations.
Federal Action:
* Since 1991, FAA has sponsored the Aviation and Space Education
Outreach Program, which teaches students between kindergarten and the
12th grade about aerospace technology and career opportunities.
* Since 2001, under the President's High Growth Job Training
Initiative, Labor has issued eight aerospace industry demonstration
grants, totaling over $10 million. These grants funded demonstration
projects to help train and improve the U.S. aerospace workforce.
* In December 2003, Congress enacted Vision 100--Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Vision 100),[Footnote 65] which included language
to promote the aerospace workforce and to fund a scholarship program
for careers in aerospace-related fields.
* In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, Congress directed NASA to
develop a human capital strategy to ensure that NASA has a workforce of
the appropriate size and with the appropriate skills to carry out its
programs. NASA has assigned a team of representatives from each of its
centers and directorate locations to coordinate and identify the skills
available at these locations. The results of this process are scheduled
for completion by the end of fiscal year 2006.
* In February 2006, Labor announced a series of grant awards under the
Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development Initiative. Over
three years, this initiative will provide $195 million to thirteen
regions to address the skill challenges of one or more industries,
including aerospace, which has been identified as critical for economic
growth.
* In April 2006, the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and
Competitiveness of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation held a hearing to examine approaches for fostering
innovation in math and science.
Subrecommendation: Make tax credits available to employers who invest
in the skills and training programs needed by the industry.
Federal Action:
* No specific tax credit is available to the aerospace industry.
* In 2006, the President proposed making an R&D tax credit permanent to
encourage private-sector investment in technology. For fiscal year
2007, the administration budgeted $4.6 billion for the R&D incentives.
Subrecommendation: Make long-term investments in education and training
with a major emphasis in math and science, so that the aerospace
industry has access to a scientifically and technologically trained
workforce.
Federal Action:
* In 2002, NASA unified all of its educational programs (previously
managed by individual mission offices and field centers) under one
organization and vision.
* NASA's five programs target elementary and secondary education,
higher education, NASA exhibits and community-based events, and the
Minority University Research and Education Program. Funding for NASA's
education programs has decreased from $217 million in fiscal year 2005
to about $153 million in the fiscal year 2007 budget. This budget
decrease, for example, will result in NASA deferring the implementation
of the Science and Technology Scholarship Program.
* In 2005, Congress directed NASA to review its educational programs.
This review will be conducted by the National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences and will evaluate NASA's precollege
science, technology, and mathematics education programs.
* Congress established Defense's scholarship program ("SMART") for
students in science and math under the National Defense Authorization
Act for fiscal year 2005. These scholarships and fellowships are
awarded to applicants who are pursuing a degree in, or closely related
to, science, mathematics, or engineering.
* In 2006, the President announced the American Competitiveness
Initiative to encourage innovation in science and technology, and to
support math and science education. In the fiscal year 2007 budget, the
administration has committed $5.9 billion for R&D, education, and
entrepreneurship. Over the next 10 years, the administration plans to
commit $50 billion to increase funding for research and $86 billion for
R&D tax incentives.
* In 2006, the President proposed a plan to train an additional 70,000
high school math and science teachers with the objective of increasing
advanced-placement courses in math and science. In addition, up to
30,000 math and science professionals will be recruited to teach in
classrooms nationwide.
Recommendation: The Commission recommends that the federal government
significantly increase its investment in basic aerospace research,
which enhances U.S. national security; enables breakthrough
capabilities; and fosters an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace
transportation system. The U.S. aerospace industry should take a
leading role in applying research to product development.
Subrecommendation: Increase and provide stable funding in order to
achieve national technology goals, especially in long-term research in
areas such as propulsion and power, emissions and noise, and human
factors; as well as associated research, development, testing, and
equipment infrastructure.
Federal Actions:
* FAA's R&D funding declined from $349 million in fiscal year 2001 to
$279 million in fiscal year 2005 (in constant fiscal year 2005
dollars). FAA plans indicated that these funds support the R&D needs of
NGATS.
* Defense's R&D funding has increased overall since the publication of
the Commission report. The majority of the department's R&D funding
goes to development activities, but Defense's science and technology
budgets for air and space research have increased between fiscal years
2001 to 2005 from $613 million and $220 million to $907 million and
$462 million, respectively (in fiscal year 2005 dollars).
* NASA's overall R&D budget has decreased slightly, shifting from $10.6
billion in fiscal year 2001 to $10.2 billion in fiscal year 2005 (in
constant fiscal year 2005 dollars). Looking forward, NASA's budget is
expected to vary between missions. Space activities are expected to
increase overall, though some programs will decline, whereas
aeronautics research is expected to decline. For example, NASA's fiscal
year 2007 budget request for the Exploration Systems Mission
Directorate increased by $1.3 billion over 2006 levels to nearly $3.1
billion (a 76 percent increase), but the Aeronautics Research Mission
Directorate request is about $724 million for 2007--down 18 percent
from the fiscal year 2006 budget in non-inflation-adjusted dollars.
* NASA's reshaped aeronautics research strategy will focus on four
programs, including one that targets air traffic management research
for NGATS.
* In June 2006, the National Academy of Sciences issued a study on
NASA's long-term strategy for aeronautics research and technology
development. It identifies four high-priority strategic objectives for
civil aeronautics research and, among its recommendations, suggests
that NASA establish a stable aeronautics research plan, balance in-
house research with involvement from academia and industry, and ensure
technologies are developed to a level of maturity that is appropriate
for that technology.
Figure 16: Engineers at NASA Langley Research Center:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NASA.
[End of figure]
Subrecommendation: Adopt national technology demonstration goals for
2010 on air transportation and space.
Federal Action:
* JPDO identified technology goals in its NGATS plan. These goals are
not consistent with the goals outlined in the Commission's report. For
example, the NGATS plan calls for a 30 percent reduction in transit
time for domestic aviation travel, whereas the Commission calls for a
50 percent reduction in travel time between any two points on earth, as
well as between any two points in space. In general, the Commission's
goals are more specific and aggressive than the NGATS goals.
* In 2006, NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate announced
plans for R&D. These plans do not include demonstration goals. In
addition, NASA cancelled funding in fiscal year 2004 for the Hyper-X
hypersonic vehicle program, which demonstrated air-breathing flight of
mach 9.6 in 2004.
Figure 17: Computational Fluid Dynamic Image of the Hyper-X Vehicle:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NASA.
[End of figure]
Subrecommendation: Find new and faster ways to transfer research and
technology developed in federal laboratories, and in academia, to
applications in the private sector, by establishing partnerships
between government, industry, and academia.
Federal Action:
* NASA's research strategy includes a new approach for establishing
partnerships with universities and the private sector. Some key
milestones in this approach include the following:
- In January 2006, NASA issued three requests for information that will
be used to solicit information on key areas of interest for private
industry and determine opportunities for collaboration with NASA's
planning and research efforts.
- In May 2006, NASA released research announcements to solicit
proposals for foundational research in areas where NASA needs to
enhance its core capabilities. The announcements were influenced by the
response to the requests for information, solicited in January 2006,
and were open to all stakeholders.
* NASA's realigned aeronautics research mission plans to focus on
foundational research and will develop new technologies to a lower--and
therefore less readily adopted--maturity level than in the past.
* In 2004, NASA's Centennial Challenges Program initiated competitions,
with prizes under $250,000, for advances in a variety of technical
areas such as astronaut gloves, high strength-to-weight materials, and
telerobotic construction. The 2005 NASA Authorization Act provided NASA
with the legislative authority to conduct competitions with prizes up
to $1,000,000.
Figure 18: NASA Glen Research Center's Research on Aircraft Noise:
[See PDF for image]
Source: NASA.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Joint Planning and Development Office:
Role of the Joint Planning and Development Office in the National
Airspace System Modernization:
FAA, with research assistance from NASA, has had the primary
responsibility for planning and implementing national airspace system
modernization since these efforts began more than 20 years ago.
Recently, FAA placed the modernization program under a new Air Traffic
Organization (ATO), headed by a Chief Operating Officer. The JPDO
Director reports to the FAA Administrator and to ATO's Chief Operating
Officer.[Footnote 66] JPDO's scope is broader than traditional air
traffic control modernization in that it is "airport curb-to-airport
curb," encompassing such issues as security screening and environmental
concerns. Additionally, JPDO's approach will require unprecedented
consensus and cooperation among many stakeholders--federal and
nonfederal--about necessary system capabilities, equipment, procedures,
and regulations.
JPDO Organization Structure and Partner Agencies:
JPDO was mandated by the Vision 100 and is comprised of seven partner
agencies: Commerce, Homeland Security, DOT, Defense, FAA, NASA, and
OSTP. Each of these agencies has expertise and technology that will
play a part in creating NGATS and responsibilities for coordinating
their activities. Figure 19 lists JPDO's organization and how its
partner agencies fit into that organization. JPDO has staffed its
organization with partner-agency employees, many of whom work for JPDO
on a part-time basis. The JPDO board, which provides coordination
between partner agencies and JPDO, is composed of key executives of the
partner agencies who can facilitate bringing agency resources to bear
on NGATS development. Additionally, Vision 100 created the Next
Generation Air Transportation Senior Policy Committee, composed of
partner agency senior executives, to provide ongoing policy review and
identify resource needs from the partner agencies.
Figure 19: JPDO Organization Chart:
[See PDF for image]
Source: JPDO.
[End of figure]
JPDO's Integrated Plan:
In December 2004, JPDO and its partner agencies developed and submitted
to Congress its integrated plan that broadly addresses the goals and
objectives for NGATS. This plan provided a vision statement that
elaborates on the broadly stated common outcome set forth by the Vision
100 legislation--an air transportation system that meets potential air
traffic demand by 2025. In addition, the plan provides eight strategies
that formed the basis for JPDO's eight integrated product teams, and
various partner agencies have taken the lead on specific strategies.
(See table 5.) In March 2006, JPDO published its first report to
Congress on the progress made in carrying out the integrated plan.
Table 5: JPDO's Strategies and Responsible Agencies:
Strategy: Develop airport infrastructure to meet future demand;
Lead agency: FAA.
Strategy: Establish an effective security system without limiting
mobility or civil liberties;
Lead agency: Homeland Security.
Strategy: Conduct research to enable an agile air traffic system that
quickly responds to shifts in demand;
Lead agency: NASA.
Strategy: Establish shared situational awareness--where all users share
the same information;
Lead agency: Defense.
Strategy: Establish a comprehensive and proactive approach to safety;
Lead agency: FAA.
Strategy: Develop environmental protection that allows sustained
aviation growth;
Lead agency: FAA.
Strategy: Develop a systemwide capability to reduce weather impacts;
Lead agency: Commerce.
Strategy: Harmonize equipage and operations globally;
Lead agency: FAA.
Source: GAO presentation of JPDO data.
[End of table]
JPDO Efforts to Leverage Partner Agency Resources:
Vision 100 requires JPDO to coordinate NGATS-related programs across
the partner agencies. To address this requirement, JPDO conducted an
initial interagency review of its partner agencies' R&D programs during
July 2005 to identify work that could support NGATS. Through this
process, JPDO identified early opportunities that could be pursued
during fiscal year 2007 to coordinate and minimize the duplication of
research programs across the partner agencies and produce tangible
results for NGATS. In addition, JPDO is currently working with the
Office of Management and Budget to develop a systematic means of
reviewing the partner agencies' budget requests, so that the NGATS-
related funding in each request can easily be identified. Such a
process would help the Office of Management and Budget consider NGATS
as a unified federal investment, rather then as disparate line items
distributed across several agencies' budget requests.
The challenge of leveraging resources will likely intensify beginning
in 2008, when JPDO expects a significant increase in the workload of
its integrated product teams. JPDO anticipates needing more resources
for the teams to, among other things, plan demonstrations of potential
technologies to illustrate some of the early benefits that could be
achieved from the transformation to NGATS.
JPDO Is Involving Nonfederal Stakeholders:
JPDO has structured itself in a way that involves federal and
nonfederal stakeholders throughout its organization. Vision 100
directed JPDO to involve nonfederal stakeholders as it fulfills its
mission. Nonfederal stakeholders may participate through the NGATS
Institute. Through this institute, JPDO obtained the participation of
over 180 stakeholders from over 70 organizations for the integrated
product teams. The NGATS Institute Management Council, composed of top
officials and representatives from the aviation community, oversees the
policy and recommendations of the institute and provides a means for
advancing consensus positions on critical NGATS issues.
As with its federal partner agencies, JPDO has no direct authority over
the human, technical, or financial resources of its nonfederal
stakeholders. To date, nonfederal stakeholders spend approximately 10-
25 percent of their time, per week, on the integrated project teams;
members of the NGATS Institute Management Council attend approximately
one meeting per month. The challenge for JPDO is to maintain the
interest and enthusiasm of nonfederal stakeholders, who will have to
juggle their own multiple priorities and resource demands in order to
maintain this level of participation when some tangible benefits may
not be realized for several years.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
AUG 16 2006:
Mr. Gerald L. Dillingham:
Director:
Civil Aviation Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Dillingham:
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is in receipt of the
draft Government Accountability Office (GAO)' report entitled, "U.S.
Aerospace Industry: Progress in Implementing Aerospace Commission
Recommendations and Remaining Challenges." (GAO-06-920):
The report describes the activities of the President's High Growth Job
Training Initiative for the aerospace industry and cites several
experts who question whether this initiative will have significant
impact given the scale of the workforce challenges confronting the
industry. ETA believes it is important to recognize that the
President's High Growth Job Training Initiative is designed to
demonstrate innovative model solutions to these workforce challenges.
These solutions may then be leveraged and replicated by the larger
publicly-funded workforce investment system, in partnership with
industry, education providers, and other stakeholders, utilizing
formula funding under the Workforce Investment Act. ETA has produced
the Workforce30ne Web site (www.workforce3one.org) specifically to
promote the best practices demonstrated under the High Growth Job
Training initiative, and to disseminate the practical tools and
resources that have been developed with grant funding. Therefore, ETA
believes its efforts can have substantial impact by leveraging the
$10,494,000 investment in aerospace solutions through the WIA-funded
workforce investment system.
Also, the overall purpose of the High-Growth Job Training Initiative is
to model a demand-driven workforce investment system that understands
and responds to businesses' changing competency and skill requirements.
By moving to a demand-driven approach the public system will develop
the ability to respond to the workforce challenges faced by the
aerospace industry.
If you would like additional information, please do not hesitate to
call me at (202) 693-2700.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Office of the Administrator:
Washington, DC 20546-0001:
August 28, 2006:
Mr. Allen Li:
Director:
Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Li:
NASA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the August 2006 draft of
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report GAO-06-920 entitled
"Progress in Implementing Aerospace Commission Recommendations and
Remaining Challenges." While we agree with the majority of the content,
we would like to emphasize four items that we think are important to
convey.
First, as noted in the report, NASA's restructuring of its Aeronautics
Program to ensure a strong focus on long-term, cutting-edge,
fundamental research is well aligned with the Commission's
recommendations. We want to ensure, however, that it is understood that
NASA defines fundamental research as that research that includes
continued, long-term scientific study in areas such as physics,
chemistry, materials, experimental techniques, and computational
techniques that leads to a furthering of our understanding of the
underlying principles that form the foundation of the core aeronautics
disciplines, as well as that research that integrates the knowledge
gained in these core areas to significantly enhance our capabilities,
tools, and technologies at the disciplinary (e.g., aerodynamics,
combustion, dynamics and control, acoustics) and multidisciplinary
(e.g., engine design, airframe design) level. We make this point
because aeronautics is inherently multidisciplinary, and any investment
in the foundational areas of physics, chemistry, etc., must be linked
to long-term goals at the multidisciplinary level. NASA does not want
people to assume that we will only be conducting basic research that is
not tied to system-level objectives.
Second, NASA would like to point out the following comments taken
directly from the Commission's report:
"Industry has the responsibility for leveraging government and
university research and for transforming it into new products and
services, quickly and affordably. But, the U.S. aerospace industry has
not invested sufficiently to transition research into marketable
products and services. "
and:
"The Commission believes that the U.S. aerospace industry must take the
leadership role in transitioning research into products and services
for the nation and the world. To assist them, the government must
provide industry with insight into its long-term research goals and
programs. With this information, the industry needs to develop business
strategies that can incorporate this research into new products and
services. Industry also needs to provide an input to the government on
its research priorities. "
NASA's restructured Aeronautics Program is directly aligned with these
recommendations, but we are concerned that this alignment is not
reflected in the draft report.
Third, we greatly appreciate that the draft report accurately
represents NASA's position regarding narrowly focused demonstrations,
but we would like to emphasize that this does not mean that we will not
be conducting flight test experiments. To the contrary, NASA intends to
conduct flight test experiments across most of the projects in its
portfolio, including partnering with the Department of Defense (DOD) in
several efforts. For example, NASA will be working with the DOD on the
X-51 program, which will leverage NASA's efforts in the recently
completed Hyper-X program. Ground testing of the X-51 engine begins
this year at the Langley Research Center, and flight testing is
scheduled to begin in the 2008/2009 timeframe. NASA believes that it is
not in the taxpayers' best interest to build large- scale flight
vehicles that are duplicative of those being built by the DOD and that
the Nation's interests are best served by partnering with the DOD
rather than trying to compete with it. In fact, we have recently signed
an MOU with the Air Force to codify such partnerships.
Finally, we are concerned that the draft report does not acknowledge
that the restructured Aeronautics program will have a positive effect
on university research. NASA's commitment to long-term, cutting-edge
fundamental research has resulted in putting together a comprehensive
NASA Research Announcement (NRA) process to ensure full and open
competition in several research areas. More than 110 universities have
submitted proposals in response to the NRA. These proposals are
currently being reviewed.
We would like to make one final observation. While we agree with most
of the figures presented regarding the NASA budget, the draft report
incorrectly states that NASA's aeronautics research funding is
projected to decrease by almost 50 percent by 2011. We want to make
sure that the draft reflects that the Aeronautics budget has declined
18 percent from FY 2006 to FY 2007 and that the current budget projects
flat funding thereafter.
In closing, NASA would again like to thank you for the opportunity to
provide comments about the GAO draft report. We hope that these
comments will be useful.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Shana Dale:
Deputy Administator:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above individual, Teresa Spisak, Assistant Director;
Brad Dubbs; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; David Hooper; Heather Krause;
Elizabeth Marchak; Edmond Menoche; Sara Ann Moessbauer; Faye Morrison;
Josh Ormond; Tim Schindler; Richard Scott; John W. Stambaugh; Larry
Thomas; and Dale Yuge made key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] European Union, Strategic Aerospace Review for the 21st Century
(STAR-21) (Brussels, Belgium: July 2002).
[2] European Union, European Aeronautics: A Vision for 2020 (Brussels,
Belgium: Jan. 2001).
[3] Section 1092 of Pub. L. No. 106-398, Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
[4] Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry,
Final Report (Arlington, Va.: Nov. 2002).
[5] Aerospace Industries Association, Aerospace: Facts and Figures 2005-
2006 (Arlington, Va.: 2005).
[6] Other federal agencies involved in the aerospace industry to some
extent are the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and State.
[7] The Department of Homeland Security also funds a variety of R&D
activities, including some related to aviation security. These
activities are overseen by the Department of Homeland Security's
Science and Technology Directorate. This directorate requested
approximately $1 billion for fiscal year 2007, but these funds are
primarily for homeland security-capabilities R&D.
[8] Federal agencies were not required to implement any of the
Commission's recommendations.
[9] National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences,
Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future
(Washington, D.C.: 2006) and the National Institute of Aerospace,
Responding to the Call: Aviation Plan for American Leadership
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2005).
[10] NASA, The Vision for Space Exploration (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
2004).
[11] GAO, Defense Trade: Arms Export Control System in the Post-9/11
Environment, GAO-05-234 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2005).
[12] While separate space and aeronautic policies have been developed,
or are in the process of being developed, there is no single national
aerospace policy.
[13] Pub.L. No. 108-176 (Dec. 12, 2003).
[14] FAA's fiscal year 2007 budget request for R&D includes about $18
million for JPDO, which is supplemented by matching funds from NASA.
NASA has committed to continuing this match in the future, according to
a JPDO official. JPDO uses these funds to conduct planning and studies.
Vision 100 authorized $50 million annually for 7 years for JPDO.
[15] As directed by Vision 100, the FAA Administrator provided this
integrated plan to Congress in December 2004. JPDO, Integrated National
Plan for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (Dec. 2004). In
March 2006, JPDO issued a progress report on the integrated plan, which
provides information on JPDO's organization and activities, such as
staffing integrated product teams that are discussed in appendix IV.
[16] GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary
Analysis of the Joint Planning and Development Office's Planning,
Progress, and Challenges, GAO-06-574T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29,
2006); GAO, Air Traffic Control: Status of the Current Modernization
Program and Planning for the Next Generation System, GAO-06-738T
(Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2006); GAO, Air Traffic Control
Modernization: Status of the Current Program and Planning for the Next
Generation Air Transportation System, GAO-06-653T (Washington, D.C.:
June 21, 2006); GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System:
Preliminary Analysis of Progress and Challenges Associated with the
Transformation of the National Airspace System, GAO-06-915T
(Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2006).
[17] NASA's fiscal year 2006 budget provides $174 million for the
Airspace Systems program, which, according to NASA, is aligned with
NGATS-related airspace research needs. The President's proposed budget
for fiscal year 2007 shows future funding for this program decreasing
by more than 50 percent through fiscal year 2011. NASA officials noted
that research in the Aviation Safety Program and Subsonic Fixed Wing
project also support NGATS-related research in addition to contributing
to broader national needs in military and civil aviation.
[18] Former programs of the Biological and Physical Research Enterprise
merged with Exploration Systems on August 1, 2004.
[19] NASA, NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study (Washington,
D.C.: Nov. 2005).
[20] The Constellation Systems program will develop, demonstrate, and
deploy the collection of systems that will enable sustained human
exploration of the Moon and Mars. These include the Crew Exploration
Vehicle for the transport and support of human crews traveling to low
Earth orbit and beyond, as well as launch vehicles for transport of the
Crew Exploration Vehicle and cargo to low Earth orbit, and any ground
or in-space support infrastructure for communications and operations.
[21] The Exploration Systems Research and Technology program's primary
focus is solar system exploration. This program will include areas such
as exploratory R&D of new high-leverage technologies and the
development of nuclear technologies for power and propulsion.
[22] The Human Systems Research and Technology program focuses on
ensuring the health, safety, and security of humans through the course
of solar-system exploration.
[23] National Academy of Sciences, An Assessment of Balance in NASA's
Science Programs (Washington, D.C.: 2006).
[24] The high growth initiatives provide federal funding to local
workforce training programs in 14 high-growth business sectors that
have been identified as potentially adding a substantial numbers of new
jobs, or have emerging technologies that require new skill sets for
workers.
[25] The targeted industries are: advanced manufacturing, aerospace,
automotive, biotechnology, construction, energy, financial services,
geospatial technology, health care, homeland security, hospitality,
information technology, retail, and transportation.
[26] GAO, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 12, 2005).
[27] The 13 federal agencies are the Departments of Agriculture,
Education, Energy, Homeland Security, and the Interior; Commerce; DOT;
the Environmental Protection Agency; the Health Resources and Services
Administration; the Indian Health Service; NASA; the National
Institutes of Health; and the National Science Foundation.
[28] STEM fields cover degrees in many disciplines (including
aerospace, aeronautical, and astronautical engineering) and occupations
(including aerospace, electrical, and electronics engineers).
[29] The Federal Pell Grant Program promotes access to postsecondary
education by providing need-based grants to low-income students.
[30] Pub. L. No. 109-171 (2006).
[31] The American Competitiveness Initiative identified the National
Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and
Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology as the
federal agencies that will have investments in their core research
activities doubled over the next 10 years.
[32] GAO-06-114.
[33] NASA uses the term "fundamental" to refer to research that
includes continued long-term, scientific study in core areas such as
physics, chemistry, materials, experimental techniques, and
computational techniques to enable new capabilities and technologies
for individual and multiple disciplines.
[34] In addition, NASA's aeronautics directorate plans to preserve key
aeronautics test facilities, such as wind tunnels.
[35] Technology maturity is attained when a technology can be shown to
work in an operational environment.
[36] The Commission report stated the Commission's belief that the U.S.
aerospace industry must take a leadership role in transitioning
government and university research into products and services. In
reviewing a draft of this report, NASA officials stated that their
restructured aeronautics program is directly aligned with the
Commission's intent.
[37] National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences,
Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future
(Washington, D.C.: 2006).
[38] GAO, Aviation Infrastructure: Challenges Related to Building
Runways and Actions to Address Them, GAO-03-164 (Washington, D.C.: Jan.
30, 2003).
[39] GAO-03-164.
[40] ICAO is a United Nations agency that sets international standards
on civil aviation for 188 member states. The organization addresses
fundamental issues ranging from air navigation and capacity to emerging
environmental concerns such as engine noise and emissions.
[41] JPDO has a global harmonization integrated product team, led by
managers from the Air Traffic Organization's Operations Planning
Services International and FAA's Office of International Aviation.
[42] The areas of cooperation include regulations, standards, and
procedures; coordination with international organizations; R&D; and
civil and military air traffic management issues.
[43] GAO-06-738T.
[44] Commerce licenses dual-use items under Executive Order 13222 (66
Fed. Reg. 44025), and State licenses arms exports under the Arms Export
Control Act (P.L. 90-629).
[45] GAO, Defense Trade: Arms Export Control System in the Post-9/11
Environment, GAO-05-234 (Washington D.C.: Feb. 16, 2005).
[46] GAO-05-234.
[47] Cases include applications for the permanent export of arms, the
temporary export and import of arms, and agreements between U.S.
industry and foreign entities to provide technical assistance or
manufacturing capability, as well as requests for amendments to
existing licenses and jurisdiction determinations.
[48] The median processing time is the point at which 50 percent of the
cases took more time and 50 percent took less time. We are reporting
the median processing time because average (or mean) processing times
can be significantly affected by a small number of cases that had much
longer review times than the majority of cases.
[49] GAO, Export Controls: Improvements to Commerce's Dual-Use System
Needed to Ensure Protection of U.S. Interests in the Post-9/11
Environment, GAO-06-638 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2006).
[50] See H.R. 4572, 109th Congress and H.R. 4200, 109th Congress.
[51] For additional information on federal budget constraints see GAO,
21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2005).
[52] Statement of Michael Griffin, Administrator, NASA, before the
Committee on Science, House of Representatives, February 16, 2006.
[53] National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences,
Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics: Foundation for the Future
(Washington, D.C.: 2006).
[54] GAO-06-915T.
[55] GAO, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114 (Washington
D.C.: Oct. 12, 2005). Among the agencies involved in these programs are
NASA and FAA, which support degrees in aerospace and aeronautical
engineering.
[56] GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary
Analysis of the Joint Planning and Development Office's Planning,
Progress, and Challenges, GAO-06-574T (Washington D.C.: Mar. 29, 2006).
[57] Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry,
Final Report (Arlington, Va.: Nov. 2002).
[58] For the purpose of this report, we define industry-funded R&D to
exclude R&D funded by the government (and federally funded R&D centers)
and academia.
[59] For the purposes of this report, Defense's Research, Development,
Testing and Evaluation budget is referred to as Defense's R&D budget.
[60] Defense's R&D budget is divided into seven categories in the
Defense budget: basic research, applied research, advanced technology
development, demonstration and validation, engineering and
manufacturing development, management support, and operational systems
development. The first three categories are referred to as science and
technology.
[61] FAA's R&D budget increased in fiscal year 2002 partly because of
new post-September 11, 2001, aviation security funding. This security
research is now funded through Homeland Security.
[62] ADS-B is a surveillance technology that transmits an aircraft's
identity, position, velocity, and intent to other aircraft and to air
traffic control systems on the ground, thereby enabling pilots and
controllers to have a common picture of airspace and traffic.
[63] FAA's budget includes funds for 'Facilities and Equipment'
activities. These activities aim to improve and modernize the equipment
central to the national airspace system. Some of its facilities and
equipment activities involve R&D.
[64] Capstone is an FAA program intended to improve aviation system
safety in Alaska through the introduction of new navigation
technologies.
[65] Pub.L. No. 108-176 (Dec. 12, 2003).
[66] ATO is FAA's business unit that is responsible for operating,
maintaining, and modernizing the nation's current air traffic control
system.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: