Chairman, Committee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Young: I am writing to inform you that the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – United States of America (IEEE-USA), an organization of 240,000 electrical, electronics and computer engineers, endorses the enclosed position statement by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, entitled "The Aeronautics Programs Within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Request." As the House and Senate reconcile the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations bills, we strongly encourage you to heed the recommendations outlined in the ASME position paper and support the vital America aeronautics industry. If you have any questions about our position, or if we can be of further assistance please contact our Aerospace Policy Committee Legislative Representative, Bill Williams at (202) 785-0017. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely, Merrill W. Buckley, Jr.2000 President, IEEE-USA The Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers - United States of America (Sample of letter sent to House & Senate Appropriations Committee members) ASME Position Statement #00-13
(April 7, 2000) Aeronautics Programs Within the
National Aeronautics Prepared by the Submitted to April 12, 2000 The Aerospace Engineering Division of ASME International welcomes this opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee in this, the first budget year of the New Millenium, to present our views on the NASA FY2001 budget request. Let me first express the ASME Aerospace Engineering Division’s support for the administration’s proposed 3.2 % increase in the overall FY 2001 NASA budget. After last year’s often contentious debate on whether NASA’s FY 2000 budget should be significantly reduced from the FY 1999 appropriated level, the administration decision to take a different route in the FY2001 request is indeed welcome. We also support NASA’s proposed programs in aviation safety as recommended in the recently published report, National R&D Plan for Aviation Safety, Security, Efficiency and Environmental Compatibility of the President’s National Science and Technology Council. Nevertheless, in our judgement, the proposed NASA programs for FY 2001 and beyond will not address the nation’s most critical aeronautics research and development needs. The balance of our testimony will discuss our specific concerns: the combining of NASA aviation R&D with space programs, economic competitiveness for the United States, aviation safety, risk in the U.S. aerospace infrastructure, and the downturn in aeronautical engineers for the future. Subsuming NASA Aviation Research and Development into Space Programs Building on the issues we raised in our testimony last year, we express our concern that this year's proposal combining aeronautics R&D with space-related technology development programs may actually undermine U.S. leadership in civil and defense aviation. Although we understand the idea that such a blending of resources will provide synergism between the aeronautics and space research programs, the fact is that federal support for advanced aviation directed technology development has been on the decline for the past several years - not only in NASA, but across the government. The expected synergism may therefore show a uni-directional resource flow - from aircraft technology to spacecraft technology. One could possibly argue that this decline is appropriate for a mature industry - after all, aviation technology has been advancing for nearly one hundred years. In this age of information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology (naming only a few) we see whole new industries created and growing almost daily, and it may be easy to rationalize that tax dollars formerly dedicated to producing the technologies for civil and military air transport would best be invested in these new frontier areas. Continued exploration in established industries, such as the air transport industry, is best left to the industries themselves, so the argument goes. It is our view that such a position fails to recognize the contribution that federal investment in civil and military aeronautics research makes to the nation's economy and international economic competitiveness. Such a position fails to recognize that the government agencies (FAA, NASA, and NTSB) are the controlling influence for safety and efficiency in the national airspace system. Also, it fails to recognize the national security implications of providing the necessary resources and research to assure the availability of technologies needed for long-term future military aircraft designs (beyond the F-22 and JSF). Even though NASA’s overall budget request for Space, Aeronautics and Technology proposes a 6.2 % increase, the research and technology base that includes vehicle systems, propulsion and power, flight research, rotorcraft, and information technologies, is poised to decline by $43 million from the already insufficient FY 2000 level. Hypersonics research funding has been abandoned in the FY 2001 budget request. Clearly these deficiencies are indicative of a marked shift in NASA priorities toward space related research investments. We do not question the importance of NASA’s space sciences and space utilization and exploration programs. But we would be remiss if we failed to express our deep concern over the agency’s apparent abandonment of its historic commitment to long-term aviation research so essential to maintaining the nation’s aviation industry as the world’s civil and military leader. The Economy and Balance of Trade In February, the National Research Council reported that the U.S. has been losing ground in world aerospace market share, falling from over 70 percent in the 1980’s to 55 percent in 1997. Today this situation continues, as U.S. aerospace industries are being severely challenged by the European aerospace industry, which is garnering a significant portion of the U.S. market as well as of the world market. As a nation, are we spending our resources wisely to protect this vital segment of our economy? The present direction of decreased federal investment in aviation engineering, research, and development programs weakens the future economic competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry. In the National Science and Technology Council report cited earlier, an outline for the next generation Global Air Transportation System is articulated. However, the report does not consider issues related to the design of the next and future aircraft. What new and advanced technologies will be required to maintain and build the U.S. market share in this fiercely competitive and evolving global market? All these issues and a host of others must be considered if the U.S. is to remain a major player in the ever- expanding international aviation enterprise The United States commercial aviation industries, faced with ever increasing global competition, are driven to focus the vast majority of their research dollars on projects that can affect near-term profits. The total global market for aviation-related products and services is estimated to be greater than $1.6 trillion over the next twenty years. The U.S. market share in this industry and the U.S. investment in advanced aviation R&D both continue to decline. In 1999, Airbus logged 52% of the market share of orders for commercial jets seating over 100 passengers, exceeding Boeing for the first time. Yet in this same time period, NASA cut $200 million from the aeronautics portfolio. Aeronautics now represents less than 5 % of NASA’s budget. The cost to develop a new product such as a large transport aircraft can approach or exceed $15 billion. In the past, large investments in evolutionary significant-risk technologies, such as the transition to commercial jet aviation, have been accomplished through a partnering among industry, NASA (or its predecessor NACA), DOD and the FAA. These partnerships have proven to be an efficient means for maintaining the past U.S. lead in aeronautical technology with concomitant economic benefits. We are not asking that the government share the cost of specific commercial aviation developments, as has been the case in other countries. Rather, we ask that NASA undertake high-risk, potentially high-payoff R&D, which then can become the basis for commercial enterprises. In our view, NASA must resume its intellectual and financial support for partnerships that sustain mid- and long-term innovative basic research in propulsion, materials and new structural concepts applicable not only to spacecraft, but also to future aircraft designs. Recent NASA/Boeing/University partnering in Blended Wing Body (BWB) technology is a positive example. We encourage that adequate support be given to advanced subsonic technology and next-generation high-speed civil transport programs. These may well become the next big competitive arenas for the international aviation industry and the U.S. should be prepared to lead. What is certain is that government- private sector partnerships are essential to meeting these growing challenges. Aviation Safety Should be a NASA Priority After a long period of steady improvement in aviation safety, the U.S. accident rate has stabilized at a very low rate and has remained relatively unchanged for about 20 years. However, even if aviation safety is maintained at the present low accident rate, the large expected increase in air operations would result in an unacceptable increase in the actual number of accidents and loss of life, with major accidents eventually occurring nearly weekly within perhaps a decade. Additionally, many of the recent aviation accidents may have been avoided by the application of known technologies and procedures, and by the application of near-term-benefit R&D. The November 1999 National Research and Development Plan for Aviation Safety, Efficiency, Security, and Environmental Compatibility delineates an aviation safety program plan involving current operational solutions, FAA research, and NASA research, in the areas of accident precursor management, safety risk management, accident prevention, and accident mitigation. ASME has numerous activities that are conducted in the interest of the safety of the public, and we strongly support the aviation safety thrusts in the cited national plan. However, we are concerned that NASA emphasis on space programs, and increased assignment of R&D to the FAA, along with budget realities, may diminish NASA contributions to this problem solving. Aviation safety problems with components and operations that are amenable to near-term solution by applying existing technologies or through near-term urgent research include the following:
These critical safety problems require the attention of both the FAA and the NASA in a synergistic manner. They should not be ignored or overlooked regardless of agency assignment or other priorities. The safety of the travelling public, aircrews, and the status of trust in the U.S. aviation industry is at stake. NASA, working in concert with the FAA, has been a
major contributor to the technological advances needed to build a secure and safe air
transportation system. NASA, rather than the FAA, has traditionally been the home for
Federal aviation R&D, beginning at least as early as the excellent contributions of
it’s predecessor, the NACA. The recent FAA/NASA collaboration in aviation R&D, a
needed improvement, is commended. But, the head of the FAA’s Research, Engineering,
and Development Advisory Committee recently stated: “We do not believe that the FAA
has the capabilities to conduct basic R&D. NASA was created to be the source of basic
R&D, and has developed the infrastructure to accomplish its task.” However, as a
result of NASA’s declining aviation R&D, the agency is deferring many of the
above safety topics to the FAA, industry, or other nations. This may not be the intent of
the Congress, and may not be in the best interest for the Nation. I would like to call the Committee’s attention to recent reports appearing in the Aviation Week & Space Technology. The editorial in the March 6, 2000 issue makes the point that, “Aeronautics has become NASA’s Stepchild”, noting that “some of (their) readers advocate removing the aeronautics from NASA.” The editorial goes on to reject this notion, stating that “the immediate answer is for the Administration to request, and Congress to grant, higher funding for NASA to make aeronautical research a higher priority.” We heartily endorse this view. The impending risk to the nation’s aeronautics infrastructure engendered by this decline in federal support for aviation R&D has been the subject of several recent studies. A February report from the National Research Council points out that the aeronautics segment of the economy “is becoming less competitive.” The report notes that “the U.S. share of world aerospace markets fell from over 70 percent in the mid- 1980s to 55 percent in 1997.” In a report released in January, the Air Force Association poses the question, “Does the Air Force have the resources and resolve to create the technological solutions that may be needed in another 20 or 30 years?” They answer this question by noting that “the paucity of S&T funding has helped erode traditional Air Force technology strengths….” Again returning to the Aviation Week analysis, “NASA has virtually abandoned its research in military aviation, a heritage that goes back some 82 years” (italics added for emphasis). In our judgement, these trends clearly should raise a flag in Congress. While total R&D funding in the U.S. will reach $266 billion this year, an increase of nearly 8 percent over 1999, 70.3 percent will come from industry. In the past, approximately half of the total would have come from the federal government, according to a 1999 report in R&D magazine. Industry sponsored R&D, while important, trends toward a strong emphasis on near-term development and process needs as opposed to basic exploration. Thus, the shift from federal government support for R&D to industry puts basic research and our investment in a sound technological future at risk. NASA’s Critical Role in Nurturing Aeronautics Research and Education For the past 75 years our American universities have provided creative, skilled engineers for national defense and aeronautical commerce. The development of an efficient global air transportation system has been driven by American technology. Students who have come from American university campuses to industrial and governmental facilities have been the source of an undisputed American commercial success; sales of aircraft and aircraft equipment accounts for one of the largest single positive balance of trade with other nations. In short, the partnership between American universities and American industry has been one of the great success stories of the 20th century. In our view this is changing. And sadly, not for the better. Airbus Industrie has moved into a strong second place in commercial transport aviation and may move into first place in 2000. The commuter aircraft industry is dominated by foreign firms such as Bombardier and Embraer. In short, foreign countries believe that it is in their interest to maintain a healthy, broad-based aircraft industry. The heart of this industry is a healthy academic source for workers and ideas; many of these engineers are educated in the United States. Our educational base has been declining and will continue to erode if we do not nurture and support basic aeronautics research in the United States. While the aeronautics commercial enterprise has changed significantly over the past fifty years, so too have the investment requirements of the academic educational and research enterprise accompanying this industrial evolution. New technologies responsible for enormous increases in aircraft performance and system efficiency have required research universities to invest heavily in new faculty, new equipment and new computing resources. Some of these resources become obsolete after only a few years, requiring cyclical renewal. Both private and state supported universities have launched development programs to ensure the availability of best facilities and best teachers, but other budget demands have made modernization difficult. Over the past several years, NASA’s de-emphasis of long-term aeronautical research has impaired U.S. universities’ ability to maintain vibrant aeronautical engineering programs. As such, these universities are finding it increasingly difficult to contribute to near- or long- term progress in aviation R&D. As this situation continues, the nation is experiencing a diminishing pipeline of qualified aeronautical engineering students at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Engineers and scientists do not consider aerospace a growth industry. Bomber and fighter design experience is vanishing. University students are attracted to high-paying new growth industries. Computer and Internet companies are stripping the aerospace industry of skilled personnel with information technology experience. We are very concerned about this issue and look to NASA leadership to make a course correction for the future. Conclusions:
This concludes our statement. I want to thank the subcommittee for its attention and for allowing us to present our views at this important hearing. ASME International is a not-for-profit technical and educational organization with 125,000 members worldwide. The Society’s members work in all sectors, including industry, education and government. This statement was prepared by a task force of the Aerospace Engineering Division of the Council on Engineering of ASME International, a group of experts in the field, and is not necessarily a position of the Society as a whole. | Top of Page | Policy Log | Public Policy Forum | IEEE-USA | Last Update: 20 Sept. 2000 Copyright © 2000, The
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. |
