TESTIMONY
AOPA President Boyer
Blasts White House FAA Budget Proposal, Calls on
Congress to Fully Fund GA Safety Programs
Frederick, MD - AOPA President Phil Boyer blasted the Clinton
Administration's FAA budget proposal for fiscal year 2001 in testimony
before Congress February 29. Speaking to the House aviation subcommittee,
Boyer criticized the budget proposal for imposing unnecessary new taxes
(user fees) while cutting programs critical to General Aviation safety.
"The Administration wants to impose $1 billion in new aviation user fees
next year alone," Boyer said. "When will President Clinton get the message?
Since this Administration came into office, Congress has emphatically told
it 'no user fees' five times!"
The Clinton proposal would collect some $9 billion in user fees by 2005, and
it would eliminate the historic General Fund contribution to FAA operations
(which supports government and military use of FAA services, and FAA's
regulatory, safety and security functions that benefit all citizens).
New taxes imposed while aviation trust fund surplus grows At the same time,
the surplus in the aviation trust fund would increase to $32 billion by 2008
under this budget.
"Mr. Chairman, why in the world are they proposing new taxes?" Boyer asked.
"The Administration's FAA budget is based on financial principles which
would be considered ludicrous under any rules except those of the federal
government."
Boyer said that this dubious budget proposal demonstrated why AIR-21, the
landmark FAA reauthorization bill, should become law. AIR-21 (which was
passed overwhelmingly by the House but is being held up by the Senate) would
take the aviation trust fund "off budget," ensuring that all aviation trust
funds could be spent on aviation needs, and guarantee a continued General
Fund contribution to FAA operations.
"Unlocking the trust fund is so critical to aviation that AOPA sent an
emergency mailing to every AOPA member urging them to pressure their
Senators to support AIR-21," Boyer told the subcommittee.
GA safety programs cut
Boyer also attacked the Administration budget for shortchanging programs
critical to General Aviation safety. In particular, he pointed to drastic
cuts in programs to improve delivery of weather information to GA pilots.
"Weather is the leading cause of GA accidents, yet today, pilots can get
better graphical weather information over the Internet or from the Weather
Channel than they can get from FAA," Boyer said. He showed committee members
the dramatic difference in the weather graphics available to Flight Service
Stations versus what's on the Internet.
"But what's lacking on the Internet is the expert knowledge provided by
FAA's highly trained FSS specialists," said Boyer. "Some modest investments
would make an immediate, positive impact on GA safety, yet those investments
were cut in the Administration's budget."
Boyer was referring to funding for OASIS (the Operational and Supportability
Implementation System) which will replace obsolete FSS computers with a
modern, Windows-based system. OASIS can deliver timely, state-of-the-art
weather graphics and can be easily updated to meet future needs.
"In terms of FAA's overall budget, this is a very modest program. Yet, the
Administration cut OASIS funding by 36 percent," Boyer said. "There is no
modernization effort that will improve General Aviation safety more than a
successful transition from the outdated FSS systems to OASIS."
The AOPA president reminded Congress that FAA promised almost three decades
ago to install automated equipment at Flight Service Stations. However,
development soon lagged and the original program was abandoned in 1984.
"How much longer does General Aviation have to wait for these promises to be
delivered?" asked Boyer.
Weather reporting, WAAS should receive more funding
Boyer also argued that more funds should be devoted to further development
of automated weather reporting equipment (ASOS and AWOS). The technology
should be extended to a greater number of airports, Boyer said, and these
weather reports should be fed into the national system.
"This would allow pilots to access weather information for their destination
airports hundreds of miles before arrival and allow them to make critical
decisions - such as whether to attempt an instrument approach - much earlier
in the flight."
Boyer advocated continued funding for development of WAAS (the Wide Area
Augmentation System), which will provide precision vertical and horizontal
guidance to all airports. WAAS will provide ILS-like instrument approaches,
but at a much cheaper cost than an Instrument Landing System. (A typical ILS
costs some $1.5 million to install, well beyond the financial resources of
most General Aviation airports.)
Administration cuts airport funding
"However, technology alone is not going to solve the problems of increasing
air traffic," Boyer said. "No one has yet been able to put two aircraft on a
runway at the same time. Eventually, all of these planes must land."
Runways take years to plan and build, yet the Administration budget proposal
effectively cuts funding for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). "The
White House raided AIP by some $88 million to cover administrative costs and
Essential Air Service. That does nothing to make the necessary improvements
to the nation's airports.
"This budget proposal drops under-funded programs into the lap of Congress,"
Boyer told the aviation subcommittee. "The Administration is trying to force
you either to cannibalize parts of FAA's budget or to implement user fees.
"It's time to stop playing this annual budget game and give FAA a
dependable, predictable funding stream that will match aviation growth.
AIR-21 will do that."
A copy of AOPA President Phil Boyer's written testimony to the House
subcommittee on aviation is available on AOPA Online at www.aopa.org.
(or see below).
The 355,000-member Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association is the world's
largest civil aviation organization. More than one-half of the nation's
pilots are AOPA members.
-AOPA-
Statement of
Phil Boyer
President
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
before the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Aviation
The Honorable John J. Duncan, Chairman
on
FAA Budget Requests & Funding Needs
February 29, 2000
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. My name is Phil
Boyer and I am the President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
For over 60 years AOPA has been promoting the interests of those who
contribute to the Nation's economy by using general aviation aircraft to
fulfill their business and personal transportation needs. In fact, more than
half of all pilots in the country are part of our 355,000-member
organization.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Clinton Administration's budget proposal for the Fiscal Year
2001. However, I must say that I am somewhat disappointed to be here at all.
This is the Administration's final budget proposal, and it is obvious that
they have yet to receive the clear message sent by this Committee. For the
fifth time in seven years the Clinton Administration has rejected the
mandate put forth by this Committee. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that even
after eight years in office this Administration cannot understand that this
Committee has said "no" to user fees. Yet, they have ignored the clear
signal you have sent and proposed them once again.
In our opinion, this budget proposal, with its dubious budgetary
assumptions, justifies the approach taken by this Committee last year when
it proposed, and the House accepted, the landmark FAA reauthorization bill
known as AIR-21. It is our sincere hope this will mark our organization's
last appearance before this Committee to discuss a budget proposal based on
financial principles which would be considered ludicrous under any rules
except those of the federal government.
Despite its proposed overall funding increases for aviation, the FY01 budget
proposal is an offer that would cut funding for general aviation programs
and shortchange the aviation infrastructure needs of the Nation. It is
predicated on a previously failed approach by which funding increases for
the FAA are financed through user fees. $1 billion in user fees in FY01 with
a total of $9 billion to be raised through fees by FY05. Despite claims in
the budget documents that current excise taxes would be "transitioned" to
user fees no tax reduction actually would take place. Thus, in our opinion,
the FAA's budget proposal for next year is left with a $1 billion hole in it
and no realistic way to pay for it.
The Administration has once again rejected the historic contribution to
aviation that is derived from the general fund. As this Committee well
knows, general fund dollars are used to support FAA operations for the
public and military use of the airspace system as well as the overall
economic benefits a national aviation system brings to those citizens who
might not ever by an airplane ticket. And perhaps worst of all Mr. Chairman,
under the Administration's budget the balance in the Aviation Trust Fund
would actually grow by FY05 to $19 billion!
Mr. Chairman, as the amount of general aviation and commercial traffic
increases each year, an already overburdened airport and airway system
continues to be pushed beyond the limits for which it was designed. The
dispersion of weather information, upgrading of the navigation system and
airport improvements are all aspects of our airport and airway system that
need immediate attention. Despite the fact that general aviation aircraft
represent 96% of the of the civil aircraft fleet and 59% of annual
operations, modest investments, not proposed in this year's budget, could
make an immediate, positive impact on general aviation safety. Let me offer
just a few examples.
Almost all general aviation pilots receive their pre-flight weather briefing
via one of the FAA's 61 Automated Flight Service Stations. The Operational
and Supportability Implementation System, known as OASIS, is designed to
replace the aging computers currently found in these flight service
stations. There is no modernization effort that will improve general
aviation safety more than a successful transition from the outdated Flight
Service Stations to OASIS. And it's long overdue. As this Committee well
knows, in the 1970s and early 1980s the FAA agreed to install automated
equipment at flight service stations. However, development soon lagged so
far behind that the program was abandoned in 1984.
OASIS will provide a modern platform for supporting National Airspace System
requirements well into the future. When fully implemented, OASIS will
correct deficiencies by providing a Windows-based, expandable platform for
supporting future workloads. The difference between the FAA's request and
what the Administration has approved is that the FAA's request would allow
for the continued development of this critical software. Yet, the
Administration's budget proposal cuts the FAA's requested funding for the
OASIS modernization program by 36%. The situation has now reached the point
where pilots are able to receive better graphical information from the
Weather Channel than from FSS. However, what pilots are missing is the
expert weather opinions provided by FSS personnel. How much longer does
general aviation have to wait for the promises of the mid-1980's to finally
be delivered? Weather is the primary cause of general aviation accidents in
this country. Implementation of a fully funded OASIS system will go a long
way to improving the safety record of the active general aviation fleet.
Likewise Mr. Chairman, it is time to fully fund the development of the ASOS
and AWOS programs. We now have the technology to replace human weather
observation with those done by computer. However, such technology has not
been expanded to cover all airports across the Nation, and more importantly
it has not been tied into the national system.
For example, a pilot flying into Frederick airport in Maryland can monitor
the AWOS when he or she is within a certain distance of the airfield;
usually a distance of approximately 20 miles. However, such important
weather information is not available to the pilot when he or she is any
farther away. As a solution, these systems should be implemented at a
greater number of airports and tied into the national system. This move
would allow pilots to access weather information for their home fields
hundreds of miles before arrival. Thus, they will be able to make critical
decisions, such as to whether or not to attempt an approach in foul weather,
much earlier in the flight.
Yet what happens when these pilots decide to attempt such an approach? If
their local airport happens to be equipped with an Instrument Landing System
(ILS) then it is safe for them to attempt a landing with poor visibility and
low ceilings. While many airports, such as McMinn County in your district
Mr. Chairman, have GPS approaches, that system does not provide pilots with
the altitude guidance information necessary to make an approach in bad
weather. As you well know, airports in communities such as Athens, TN and
others who want to attract business find the $1.5 million cost of an ILS
system prohibitive. Others have been on the waiting list for ILS equipment
for years, yet time and again they seem to be passed over for airports that
receive airline service even though those airports have a significantly
smaller number of total aircraft operations each year.
The answer to this problem is the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The
major aviation benefit of the GPS/WAAS combination will be the accessibility
of precision navigation to all airports in low visibility conditions. Today,
such as system is only possible with significant investment by the airport
sponsor, making it impractical and unaffordable to thousands of general
aviation airports. However, with proper funding, these small airports will
be able to implement new approaches using WAAS technology. The combination
of vertical and horizontal navigation provided by this system will be much
more cost effective than ILS, eventually making ILS unnecessary.
We have been very pleased to work closely with both the FAA and the airlines
on the implementation of the next generation technology--satellite
navigation using the Global Positioning System (GPS). However, the
transition to satellite based navigation has not occurred in the aggressive
timetable envisioned and hoped for by many, including AOPA. Therefore, the
WAAS should be implements as soon as possible.
However, technology alone is not going to solve the problems associated with
increased air traffic. No one has yet been able to put two aircraft on a
runway at the same time and eventually these planes must land. Runways take
years to plan, approve and build. And such construction is not going to
happen if proposed funding for the Airport Improvement Program is decreased.
Funding the AIP at last years levels, and then raiding it by some $88
million to cover administrative costs and Essential Air Service does nothing
to improve the long-term status of our Nation's airports. This Committee
should be on-guard for proposals that claim to maintain funding levels, yet
divert much need monies to other programs.
In the end, this budget proposal drops under-funded programs into the laps
of you, the Congress, and forces you to either cannibalize other parts of
the FAA's budget or implement user fees.
Mr. Chairman, once again, the Administration has presented a FAA budget
based on untenable assumptions about new taxes. It's time to stop playing
this annual budget game and give the FAA a dependable, predictable funding
stream that will match aviation growth. The way to do that is to adopt the
budget approach advocated by Full Committee Chairman Bud Shuster and Ranking
Minority Member James L. Oberstar in AIR-21. That bill would commit all of
the money in the aviation trust fund to aviation spending and maintain a
modest contribution of general fund revenues to FAA's budget.
AIR-21 would give FAA the funds it needs without imposing new taxes, while
maintaining the important congressional oversight of the Appropriations
Committees.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to appear before you this
morning. I look forward to answering any questions that you might have.