Rohrabacher: NASA and FAA Aeronautics R&D Budgets “Reflect a Lackluster Committment to our Future”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Members and several witnesses at a Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee hearing today warned that “lackluster” funding of aeronautics research and development (R&D) could have significant consequences on the future of the aviation industry.  Witnesses from NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) faced tough questions about flat funding and budget cuts in this key area.

“Unfortunately, the budgets for NASA and the FAA clearly reflect a lackluster commitment to our future in aeronautics.  In fact, NASA has cut funding for aeronautics research in half over the last ten years…meanwhile, FAA proposes only a modest increase in its program over the next five years,” said Subcommittee Chair Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA).  “Given the recommendations of The Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry, what is NASA’s rationale for continuing to cut its aeronautics R&D program?”

NASA Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology J.F. Creedon defended the budget request, stating that NASA has increased funding for the development of technology in several key areas, including the Quiet Aircraft Technology (QAT) project. 

Malcom Armstrong, Senior Vice President for Aviation Operations and Safety at the Air Transport Association disagreed, noting that “actual budget authority for [QAT and NASA’s Ultra Efficient Engine Technology program] has been less than half of what has been needed over the past few years.”  Armstrong added that it was a “significant NASA investment in the 1980s Energy Efficient Engine program, that developed the base technology in today’s modern engines.  Without a similar level of investment in R&D funding and support from NASA and FAA, it is unlikely that we will develop a new generation of aircraft that are significantly quieter and more environmentally friendly.”

Chairman Rohrabacher stated that we must also examine whether the NASA and FAA programs “are properly focused and relevant to national goals and objectives.  Preserving our aerospace industry’s edge against fierce international competition will require greater emphasis and attention to these goals.”  Echoing Rohrabacher’s concerns, which were also outlined in the Commission report, Mr. Armstrong noted that “we must be concerned about the global competitiveness of the U.S. aviation sector.  Cuts in NASA and FAA R&D budgets in the U.S. have been met with increases in the R&D budgets of our competitors.” 

Members and witnesses also expressed concerns about aviation gridlock – a repeat of the late 1990s when the air traffic control infrastructure was struggling to accommodate growth in traffic demand.  “The NASA and FAA research programs dedicated to the National Airspace System (NAS) are clearly relevant but also clearly inadequate to meet the expected demand,” said R. John Hansman, Jr., Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT, and Director of the MIT International Center for Air Transportation.  Mr. Armstrong noted that the FAA’s Operational Evolution Plan “will only add 30% improvement in capacity by 2012, while the number of flights are predicted to increase by 50%.”  To cope, Armstrong urged the development of a highly automated system to replace the current “human centered and human constrained” system. 

Hansman concluded, “the U.S. has not kept pace and is underinvested in fundamental and high risk research to develop the disciplines and people to shape aeronautics in the future…I believe we do not fully appreciate the importance and dependence of air transportation to economic health and quality of life both in the U.S. and throughout the worl.”