NextGen, the FAA's comprehensive plan for revamping the National Airspace System, is a massive project. Affecting all aspects of aviation and how aircraft operate in the US, it involves a complete overhaul of the nation's ATC and navigational infrastructure. New technologies include ADS-B, a new digital surveillance method that is already taking hold across the world and allows for more accurate and reliable monitoring of air traffic by ATC, and many other advances including satellite-based navigational and communication technologies that allow for better situational awareness across the board.
A project the size of NetGen takes years to implement. While some items have already been put into service, and ADS-B is beginning to be installed on aircraft in the US, there is a long way to go. ADS-B will be required for flight in controlled airspace by 2020, and many other NextGen items will be implemented between now and that time as well. Some NextGen projects, as well as the overall timeline, are potentially at risk due to continuing political struggles regarding the federal budget; the FAA has been found to be behind on a number of NextGen elements, while efforts are underway to keep the project on a realistic track.
(http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2014/February/06/FAA-behind-on-NextGen-UAS-and-consolidation-hearing-reveals.aspx)
For GA, ADS-B brings benefits of increased situational awareness and safety, particularly in IFR flight where data links and improved surveillance technology help to create a safer and more reliable experience. On the other hand, ADS-B and its associated hardware is expensive to install in existing aircraft, and can require major avionics upgrades that many GA pilots and owners cannot afford.
In the commercial aviation community, the same types of benefits in the safety, situational awareness, and communication areas will be seen. In addition, traffic flows into major commercial airports will potentially be streamlined and made significantly more efficient, utilizing new technology to improve methods such as Optimized Profile Descents, among others. A challenge NextGen will pose for airlines and commercial operators will be the additional training and procedural changes that will need to take place in order to align flight operations with the FAA's requirements and changes.
NextGen, given its high potential to improve the efficiency and safety of commercial aviation, should be funded in part by the country's Part 121 and 135 operators, in addition to current taxpayer funding. This could be accomplished through user fees for commercial operators, although it would be a major political hurdle given the power of the airline industry in the government and its lobbying system. While user fees have long been the mortal enemy of the GA community, it may be a legitimate option for funding the massive improvements in the airspace system when directed at its commercial users.
As for my career, working in airport operations and planning will be affected by NextGen. Traffic flow will adapt to the new technologies NextGen provides, and airport operations will have to adjust to changing arrival and departure rates, different gate requirements, and taxi and sequencing requirements.
Well-written. Are you saying GA should be charged user fees are that NextGen should solely be funded by commercial operators? What about corporate aviation?
ReplyDeleteGood point about traffic flow having to adapt to NextGen. Hopefully it will be a smooth process and hopefully every operator will be on the same page. It will definitely be interesting to see any new FAR's involving NextGen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your view on how Next Gen should be paid for as the primary users the part 121 and 135 operators should have the biggest expense. I would have liked to have seen you talk about NextGen from your point of view only so I could understand the managements side of the house a little more but overall well written thanks.
ReplyDeleteGreat Information. I really enjoyed hear more about bringing the cost down for GA folks. subsidizing the technology for GA and charge a higher tariff on corporate and commercial aviation to make up the difference. Genius. But would 121 and 135 operations ever go for this?
ReplyDeleteI also concur that a large part of the funding should come from 121 and 135 operators. Very well written and I liked your take on positives and negatives of this program.
ReplyDelete