Trump's pick to lead FAA grilled by senators over air traffic control system, safety at Reagan National Airport
President Trump's nominee to lead the Federal Aviation Administration was grilled by senators Wednesday on critical safety-related issues, including the required hours needed for pilots, the outdated air traffic control system and the ongoing problems at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
At a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, senators raised questions about the current state of the country's aviation system to airline executive Bryan Bedford. The FAA administrator role has been filled by Chris Rocheleau on an interim basis since the departure of former Administrator Mike Whitaker on Inauguration Day.
Top of the mind for senators was safety. If confirmed, Bedford would oversee the country's airspace system, which has dealt with several issues over the last six months, including fatal air travel incidents and an outdated air traffic control system that has experienced technology outages.
'The system that manages our skies is showing its age,' Bedford testified. 'The stresses of this antiquated system truly came into view as we all returned to the skies after Covid. Chronic understaffing, controller fatigue, outdated facilities and telecommunications technology has placed a significant strain on the men and women at the FAA, and it has absolutely frustrated travelers with excessive delays and cancellations and has caused the public to question whether it's truly safe to fly.'
Senators pressed Bedford on major challenges facing the FAA as it grapples with repeat air traffic control systems failures at the approach control facility for Newark Liberty International Airport; aging air traffic control infrastructure nationwide; and a shortage of 3,000 air traffic controllers.
In attendance at Wednesday's hearing were the parents of Sam Lilley, the first officer killed in the midair collision at Reagan National Airport in January that killed 67 people.
Bedford said he met with the families that lost loved ones in the tragedy. The crash led to a ban on helicopter traffic on a four-mile stretch over the Potomac River.
'We need to shine a light on this,' Bedford said. 'Transparency is going to help us find permanent solutions.'
Bedford reiterated his top priority 'will be public safety and restoring the public's confidence in flying.'
With regard to the crash, Sen. Jerry Moran, a Republican from Kansas, brought up legislation recently introduced involving ADS-B.
Civilian and military aircraft use ADS-B, which helps an aircraft broadcast its location, altitude and other key factors while monitoring other aircraft around it. ADS-B Out broadcasts aircraft information, while ADS-B In allows aircraft to receive that information.
'ADS-B In can be a significant safety improvement for the visibility of traffic because it incorporates the traffic that's on the ground,' Bedford said. 'So, when we look at the alerting systems that we have and we're relying on, even when we're using surface radars, it still requires the controller to be in the loop.'
But the Army often turned it off while flying on missions in Washington.
The NTSB previously confirmed the Army's Black Hawk helicopter involved in January's collision had the necessary equipment and was capable of transmitting, but investigators still do not know why it wasn't.
A closed-door roundtable is expected later Wednesday among lawmakers regarding the safety troubles at Reagan National Airport.
In May, some helicopter flights to the Pentagon were put on hold by the US Army pending an investigation after two planes at Reagan National Airport were forced to abort landings as a US Army Black Hawk helicopter approached the Pentagon nearby.
Those Army helicopters were from the same unit as the one that crashed.
At 4:15 p.m., the members of the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation will meet with Brig. Gen.Matthew Braman, director of Army Aviation; Rocheleau and Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Bedford has long opposed a requirement for new pilots at commercial air carriers to obtain 1,500 flight hours, which many senators brought up during Wednesday's hearing. The rule was created after the crash of Continental Connection Flight 3407 near Buffalo, New York, which left 50 people dead. The NTSB found pilot error was to blame.
His opposition to the rule dates as far back as 2014, when he testified at a hearing for the House Subcommittee on Aviation. He called the rule 'a largely inflexible and arbitrary' in his opening remarks. The rule left regional air carriers such as Republic Airways in a pilot shortage at the time.
The families of those killed in the 2009 crash expressed 'serious concerns' about Bedford's nomination, specifically citing his effort to circumvent the rule as CEO of Republic Airways. Bedford joined Republic in 1999 as president and CEO, according to the airline's website.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat from Illinois and ranking member of the Aviation Subcommittee said Bedford was 'leaving the door open' for changes to the FAA's required 1,500-flight-hour rule for first-time commercial airline pilots.
'I've asked you four questions on whether or not you will unilaterally reduce the 1,500-hour rule … at no point have you answered yes, so you are leaving the door open,' Duckworth said.
Bedford did not outright say he was committing to maintaining the 1,500-hour rule, a pilot training requirement.
During questioning, Bedford said reducing the flight hours was not his priority, stressing that he was more focused on 'fixing the air traffic control system.'
'There won't be safety loopholes, I commit to you,' Bedford said. 'We will never do anything to reduce the safety and competency of our pilots.'
CNN's Pete Muntean asked Bedford after the hearing about the 1,500-hour rule, but he did not comment further.
A top priority for the FAA is the dated air traffic control system. Paper strips and floppy discs — technology still used by controllers today — have become a talking point on Capitol Hill.
The system, which has technology in use since the 1970s and '80s, has been in the spotlight recently because of at least four outages that occurred late this spring at Newark Liberty International Airport, where controllers lost sight of planes and technology went dark. Since then, Newark Airport has seen a number of fixes, but the FAA doesn't expect it to be back to normal until October.
The FAA announced plans in May to replace core infrastructure including radar, software, hardware and telecommunications networks to manage modern travel. Duffy has not yet disclosed how much the project would cost but is counting on Congress to deliver funding.
'I believe the agency can get back on the right track if we can all agree first that the air traffic control system needs significant investment,' Bedford said.
The agency recently issued a Request for Information for a company to implement a 'brand new air traffic control system over the next three years.' It has identified five areas of interest for a new system: telecommunications, radio communications, surveillance, automation and facilities.
It's unclear how this will impact Verizon's contract with the FAA to modernize the system. Verizon has a massive $2.4 billion contract to provide a long-sought upgrade to the FAA's communications system, known as the FAA Enterprise Network Services, or FENS, program.
Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat from Colorado, asked Bedford what ideas he had to address the air traffic control problems.
'I think one of the challenges have is a lack of trust,' Bedford said, echoing written remarks he submitted to senators ahead of the hearing. 'There's a lack of trust issues within the FAA and between the FAA and some of the stakeholders, and it's been explained to me why some of those issues there are, but we have to move past that. We will have to embrace transparency and accountability as we move forward this process.'
CNN's Pete Muntean contributed to this report.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Europe Frets About US Retreating From Region Ahead of NATO
(Bloomberg) -- NATO's European allies are focused on getting through this week's summit unscathed. But even if President Donald Trump is satisfied with fresh pledges to ramp up spending, anxiety is growing about the US military presence in the region. Bezos Wedding Draws Protests, Soul-Searching Over Tourism in Venice One Architect's Quest to Save Mumbai's Heritage From Disappearing JFK AirTrain Cuts Fares 50% This Summer to Lure Riders Off Roads NYC Congestion Toll Cuts Manhattan Gridlock by 25%, RPA Reports Only after the June 24-25 summit meeting in The Hague – where North Atlantic Treaty Organization members will pledge to spend 5% of GDP on defense – will the US present its military review, which will spell out the scope of what are likely significant reductions in Europe. With some 80,000 US troops in Europe, governments in the region have factored in at least a reversal of the military surge under former President Joe Biden of about 20,000 troops. The stakes got significantly higher overnight after US struck nuclear sites in Iran with the risk that Trump will get sucked into a spiraling conflict in the Middle East after being a vocal critic of US military involvement overseas. His foreign policy U-turn will be a topic that will be hard to avoid at the gathering, especially with NATO ally Turkey present and a key stakeholder in the region. Europeans have been kept in the dark on the Trump administration's plans. But officials in the region are bracing potentially for a far bigger withdrawal that could present a dangerous security risk, according to officials familiar with the discussions who declined to be identified as closed-door talks take place before the review. Up until early June, no official from the US had come to NATO to talk about the US force posture review, spurring concern among allies that this could be done at very short notice, according to a person familiar with the matter. It's unclear whether European nations have started planning to fill any potential gaps left by US forces. Withdrawing the aforementioned 20,000 troops could also have an even greater impact if other NATO allies follow the US lead and remove their troops from the east. The worry with even deeper cuts impacting US bases in Germany and Italy is they could encourage Russia to test NATO's Article 5 of collective defense with hybrid attacks across the alliance, the person familiar also said. Since returning to the White House, Trump and his allies have warned European capitals that – despite the mounting threat from Russia – they need to take charge of their security as the US turns its military and diplomatic focus to the Indo-Pacific region. Contacted by Bloomberg, NATO declined to respond to questions but referred to a statement by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in early June. When asked about a US drawdown from Europe, he said it was normal they would pivot to Asia. 'I'm not worried about that, but I'm absolutely convinced we will do that in a step-by-step approach,' Rutte said then. 'There will be no capability gaps in Europe because of this.' The White House referred questions to the Pentagon. 'The U.S. constantly evaluates force posture to ensure it aligns with America's strategic interests,' a defense official responded. The geopolitical shift is likely to have enormous consequences for the 32-member alliance, which is weathering its greatest challenge since it became the bulwark against Soviet power in the decades after World War II. European militaries long reliant on American hard power will have to fill the gap as Washington scales back. If a troop reduction focuses on efficiency, it would be far less problematic for Europeans than one that hits critical assets and personnel that Europe couldn't replace immediately, according to one European diplomat. The nature of a withdrawal would be more important than the troop numbers, the person said. A dramatic pullout announcement is likely to trigger an instant reaction from eastern member states, with those closer to Russia immediately requesting deployments from Western European allies. The holistic review of the US military, which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says should focus on threats facing the US, is meant to reflect the tilt in the global power dynamic, bringing potentially large-scale redeployment of weapons and troops. But European diplomats have bristled at the timing of the review, taking place only after NATO signs off on its most ambitious new weapons targets since the Cold War — with member states agreeing to foot the bill. A withdrawal that is more dramatic than anticipated will mean that, after acceding to Trump's ramp-up in defense spending, they still may be left with a heavy burden to respond to a rapidly growing Russian military. 'We would be remiss in not reviewing force posture everywhere, but it would be the wrong planning assumption to say, 'America is abandoning'' or leaving Europe, Hegseth said in Stuttgart in February. 'No, America is smart to observe, plan, prioritize and project power to deter conflict.' After the Trump administration balked at providing a backstop to European security guarantees to Ukraine, a pullout of more US troops could embolden Russia's Vladimir Putin, according to people familiar with the matter. 'The question is when pressure is on for a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, what capabilities do they need to think about moving,' said Matthew Savill, director of military sciences at RUSI, a defense think tank. 'I don't get an impression that they have yet decided what that means for force levels in specific terms.' Germany, Europe's richest and most populous nation, is positioning itself to take on the largest share of the redistribution. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius is taking the lead in building out the military after the country scrapped constitutional debt restrictions when it comes to security. Berlin will do the 'heavy lifting,' he's said. Pistorius recently unveiled a new battle tank brigade in Lithuania and has said the country is committed to boosting its armed forces by as many as 60,000 soldiers. The military currently has about 182,000 active-duty troops. European governments are pushing Washington to communicate its plans clearly and space out any troop draw-downs to give them time to step up with their own forces. 'There are some capabilities, like deep precision strikes, where we Europeans need some time to catch up,' said Stefan Schulz, a senior official in the German Defense Ministry. He called for any US reduction to be done in an orderly fashion, 'so that this process of US reduction is matched with the uplift of European capabilities.' The ideal scenario would be an orderly shift within NATO toward a stronger Europe that would take about a decade, said Camille Grand, distinguished policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations and a former NATO assistant secretary general. A more dire scenario would involve a US administration acting out of frustration with European progress and drastically reducing troop presence. Grand said a 'plausible' scenario would be a cut to about 65,000 US troops, matching a low-point figure before Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 — a level that NATO could manage. 'But if we go below that, we are entering uncharted waters, a different world,' Grand said. --With assistance from Courtney McBride and Milda Seputyte. (Adds a graph of context referencing developments in the Middle East in fourth paragraph.) Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags Is Mark Cuban the Loudmouth Billionaire that Democrats Need for 2028? Ken Griffin on Trump, Harvard and Why Novice Investors Won't Beat the Pros The US Has More Copper Than China But No Way to Refine All of It Can 'MAMUWT' Be to Musk What 'TACO' Is to Trump? ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error al recuperar los datos Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos Error al recuperar los datos
Washington Post
19 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Hundreds protest in The Hague against NATO, days before the Dutch city hosts alliance summit
THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Hundreds of people protested Sunday against NATO and military spending and against a possible conflict with Iran, two days before a summit of the alliance in The Hague that is seeking to increase allies' defense budgets. 'Let's invest in peace and sustainable energy,' Belgian politician Jos d'Haese told the crowd at a park not far from the summit venue. Although billed as a demonstration against NATO and the war in Gaza, protesters were joined by Iranians who held up banners saying 'No Iran War,' the day after the United States launched attacks against three of Iran's nuclear sites. 'We are opposed to war. People want to live a peaceful life,' said 74-year-old Hossein Hamadani, an Iranian who lives in the Netherlands. Look at the environment. 'Things are not good. So why do we spend money on war?' he added. The Netherlands is hosting the annual meeting of the 32-nation alliance starting Tuesday, with leaders scheduled to meet Wednesday. The heads of government want to hammer out an agreement on a hike in defense spending demanded by U.S. President Donald Trump. The deal appeared largely done last week, until Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez wrote to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that committing Madrid to spending 5% of its gross domestic product on defense 'would not only be unreasonable, but also counterproductive .' U.S. allies have ramped up defense spending since Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, but almost a third of them still don't meet NATO's current target of at least 2% of their gross domestic product. The summit is being protected by the biggest ever Dutch security operation, code named 'Orange Shield,' involving thousands of police and military personnel, drones, no-fly zones and cybersecurity experts. ___ Associated Press writer Molly Quell in The Hague contributed.
The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth says ‘Iran has a choice,' US not seeking regime change
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday morning that Iran faces a choice between a negotiated settlement or an escalating conflict with the U.S. after strikes hit three nuclear sites in the country on Saturday. 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon along with Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine. 'And I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites, and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities,' he added. Caine said the damage assessment was ongoing but that all three nuclear sites targeted in the strikes sustained 'severe damage and destruction.' Trump on Saturday said the facilities had been 'obliterated.' Iran signaled little interest in diplomacy in the hours after the strikes, dubbed as Operation Midnight Hammer. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Hegseth said Saturday's strikes were limited in scope, but pointed to President Trump's warning on Truth Social that 'any retaliation by Iran against the United States will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' The Pentagon chief said the operation was 'not and has not been about regime change' in Iran. He said it had set back Iran's nuclear timeline. Caine also provided new details about the operation during Sunday's briefing, which he called the largest B-2 bomber operation in history. He said the U.S. dropped 75 guided weapons on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear enrichment and research sites. This included 14 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, the first operational use of the weapon, and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine, he said. A total of 125 aircraft were involved in the mission. The B-2 bombers involved in the operation flew 37 hours non-stop from their base in Missouri, refueling in the air. Caine said that a group of the bombers had been deployed west over the Pacific Ocean as a decoy. The weapons were dropped in a window from 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time. Trump announced the strike via a Truth Social post about 45 minutes later. The American forces appear to have gone undetected in Iranian airspace. Caine said no shots were fired at American aircraft, nor did Iran's missile defense system notice them. 'Throughout the mission, we retained the element of surprise,' he said. Hegseth said Congress was only notified of the attacks after warplanes had dropped their payload and exited Iranian airspace. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle accused the administration of violating the Constitution, which requires congressional approval before entering foreign wars. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted as the news broke. Massie sponsored a House resolution earlier this week to require Congressional authorization for any strike in Iran. Vice President Vance, a veteran and frequent skeptic of foreign intervention, congratulated the troops and others involved in the strike on Sunday morning. 'I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program,' said in an interview on ABC News.
