Jump to content

ATC Privatization Bill


Recommended Posts

From the Wall Street Journal article:

Robert Poole, the intellectual force behind the idea who supported the first version, calls the new bill a “big improvement.” 

So it's no longer a piece of crap.  It's a much more pleasant, light-brown colored piece of crap.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea for someone who reads the journal this was disappointing. It's sad the feeble attempt that is being made to justify privatization. I can understand cost cutting and the FAA really does need to learn to trim up around the waistline. But by the same token privatization would never save money and would only benefit the 121 carriers who created it.  

 

Tom

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Andy95W said:

From the Wall Street Journal article:

Robert Poole, the intellectual force behind the idea who supported the first version, calls the new bill a “big improvement.” 

So it's no longer a piece of crap.  It's a much more pleasant, light-brown colored piece of crap.

still looks like its dark brown to me..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2017 at 2:23 PM, Hyett6420 said:

Lets set the record straight here.  That is NOT true.  ATC for GA below 2000kgs is free in Europe in controlled airspace and outside contolled airspace, and our airspace is damn congested due to size of the place.  It is NOT expensive, in fact for the majority of us flying single pipers cessnas etc ATC is free, EXCEPT for small airfiled tower controllers where the airport has to pay for them if they want that service.  

The COST comes in in landing fees, airport movement fees, higher fuel costs due to taxation etc, and the fact that no central government pays for the upkeep of the runways, this all has to be done by the airport owner.

Andrew

Hmmm, ok.  So  to be clear, you can fly around in the IFR system all over Europe for free?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it only costs money to take off and land? No ATC fees at all? Weather briefing and other required preflight activities?

I've read much about GA being charged by ATC for IFR handling, guess it must only be Canada which does that  . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Canada we have an annual fee of $60 or $90, I can't recall. It is based on aircraft ownership I think, as I was never charged it before I owned a plane.

Some airports charge additional landing fees which are then added to your account. Most GA aircraft are exempt based on weights, except for some larger airports like Toronto or Vancouver, still only $35 or so.

 

No charges for filing IFR beyond that noted above.

Not exactly a burden from my point of view. Service is typically excellent from all aspects, although understaffed in several areas. Transport Canada on the other hand is a train wreck; major staff issues and reduction of services or access.

 

iain

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So, I wrote a letter to my congresswoman Karen Handel on this issue, as urged by AOPA. I did actually receive a direct response, which I found pleasantly surprising (the fact that she responded). It reads thusly:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding H.R. 2997, the 21st Century Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this issue.  

Over the past three years, members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have debated the need for comprehensive air traffic control reform during Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization discussions. What’s clear is that America’s air traffic control system is in need of modernization to accommodate growing air traffic demand.  

While there may have been legitimate concerns about a version of this bill that was proposed in 2016, the current version of FAA reauthorization differs significantly from the prior legislation. The 21st Century AIRR Act guarantees that no user fees will be levied on any segment of general aviation. It also aims to maintain parity on the governing board and protect access to airspace for general aviation users. Further, the bill ensures the long-term sustainability of the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which is the main source of funding for our small airports.  

The 21st Century AIRR Act is currently awaiting action from the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. Please know that I will continue to follow the progress of this bill as it moves through Congress, and will keep your concerns in mind should it reach the House floor for a vote.  

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns with me. To stay up to date on Congressional and district happenings, please visit my website at handel.house.gov to sign up for my weekly newsletter, or follow me on Facebook at www.facebook.com/RepKarenHandel or on Twitter at @RepKHandel.



Sincerely,

 

GA06-Handel-Sigfont.PNG 

Karen C. Handel
Member of Congress

 

I found it a surprisingly good example of political double-speak. She doesn't come right out against the bill, and seems to favor its provisions, but leaves the door open.  I guess I won't be able to tell whether or not to vote for her again until there's actually a vote in Congress!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jeff_S said:

 

I found it a surprisingly good example of political double-speak. She doesn't come right out against the bill, and seems to favor its provisions, but leaves the door open.  I guess I won't be able to tell whether or not to vote for her again until there's actually a vote in Congress!

Hate to break it to you, but that's also a boilerplate reply not a personalised direct response.

And you must be kidding yourself thinking that she is deliberating or at least contemplating on this issue. The whole reply sounded like a raving support for the bill, tiptoeing the same old partyline bs. "What’s clear is that America’s air traffic control system is in need of modernization to accommodate growing air traffic demand."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize it was a canned response...I said it was “direct”, not “personalized.” But my problem with the debate is that the GA side of the argument is all based on speculation about what COULD happen. The GA alphabet groups are all crying wolf. We risk sounding like we don’t want the change just because we’re afraid of the change.

And the proponents of the change are wrapping their argument around bashing the FAA for the lack of progress on modernization, ignoring the reality of the progress that’s been made. I would like to see a real intelligent debate with facts and figures rather than the posturing that I see on both sides.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jeff_S said:

I would like to see a real intelligent debate with facts and figures rather than the posturing that I see on both sides.

Sure, give me one good reason why big airlines want to take over and spend millions on providing ATC service for free?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From: https://www.flyingmag.com/senate-republican-policy-committee-confirms-atc-privatization-is-still-alive?cmpid=enews111617&spMailingID=31666316&spUserID=NTE5MDMzMzc2NQS2&spJobID=1162157605&spReportId=MTE2MjE1NzYwNQS2

Senate Republican Policy Committee Confirms ATC Privatization is Still Alive
Report mixes a few facts with implications, but ignores other hard data.

By Rob Mark  November 16, 2017

The House's efforts to hand the nation's air traffic control system over to a nonprofit corporation haven't died.

Clearly updating the technology to run the nation’s ATC system hasn’t been nearly as easy or as cheap as anyone expected. A new report (https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/nextgen-delayed-just-like-your-plane) from the Senate Republican Policy Committee says, in fact, that perhaps the original timeline to bring NextGen to fruition was unrealistic to begin with...

Beyond that theory however, NextGen is Delayed, Just Like Your Plane, sounds very similar to versions of the proposal put forth by House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA). So, why now? Probably to remind everyone that neither the Senate nor the House versions of the legislation designed to slice the FAA away from air traffic control have gone away; they're only on a short hiatus. The current extension to FAA funding, including ATC expires on March 31, 2018.

Essentially, NextGen is Delayed, Just Like Your Plane, claims delays in the nation’s airspace stem from the FAA’s use of outdated equipment such as World War II-era ground-based radar, a wobbly funding stream and FAA officials who continue to get in the way of the entire modernization process. If only there were a better way.

Digging Deeper
There are certainly elements of truth in the Senate report, but those facts could easily trip up a person lacking in-depth industry knowledge. Take the explanation of radar, a system invented during WW II. The report implies that the over-budget and behind-schedule NextGen is operating with radar older than most people reading this story, a conclusion that is more than a bit disingenuous. The capabilities of the current digital radars used in TRACONs and ARTCCs have evolved dramatically over the past seven decades.

Next, look at the ATC delays the airlines claim as the basis for this huge kerfuffle of separating FAA from ATC. The policy paper says the answer is more new technology like an all-satellite based navigation system, a move that will be booted along by the FAA’s 2020 mandate that all aircraft operating in congested airspace be ADS-B Out capable. For years, the dialogue from the FAA has been clear: no exceptions to the 2020 mandate, except they did grant one huge exception to the airlines themselves. While not exempted forever, the airlines have been granted a grace period to continue to use already installed GPS systems that “satisfy the ADS-B Out performance requirements, to varying degrees.”

The Airlines for America, the trade association for the major airlines and the same group calling for the separation of FAA from ATC because of the lack of progress on NextGen and the delays that causes the airlines, petitioned for and won the exemption from the agency that allows airliners to fly without state of the art ADS-B Out equipment until December 31, 2024. Nowhere in the claims about airline delays does the report mention the relationship between those delays and airline scheduling often responsible for trying to cram too many airplanes into the same airport at the same time.

Funding is a perpetual issue, as we see with the current extension that expires in the spring. Sadly, there is no mention in the report that taxes are all being regularly collected and are sitting in the Airport and Airways Trust Fund waiting to be distributed. How severing ATC from the FAA will overcome the Congressional firewall that allows the agency to access those funds is a topic not addressed by the report either.

Nor is there an explanation of how, last year, the A4A portrayed business aviation as the biggest single roadblock to modernization and as a special-interest group that had for decades skirted around its fair share of taxes to operate the system. Then, out of nowhere came the olive branch flip-flop from A4A that seems to say, never mind, we’ll now agree to exempt business aviation and the rest of general aviation from any user fees if they’ll only jump on the privatization bandwagon. Forget that we called you folks jet-setter cheapskates in the past.

The Senate report does mention another shark circling the privatization effort, however, that the Congressional Research Service believes a non-governmental organization running ATC might be unconstitutional. Though, the report doesn’t mention that a Congressional Budget Office audit said current pending legislation, expected to come alive again before the FAA’s extension expires next spring, “could add as much as $100 billion to the budget deficit.”

Stay tuned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only there is absolutely ZERO evidence to say the current technology including NextGen is deficient in any way, to then go from that and say privatisation is the answer to this imaginary problem is non sequitur. If anything, past experience showed us privatizing a monopoly always carries a disastrous consequence for the consumers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those willing to take the plunge, this article from David (which I had seen already) provides links upon links that allow you to dive in yourself and read the actual documents that are getting quoted and mis-quoted on each side.  I've got my regulator and mask on and preparing to swim through the material myself to see if I can make some sense of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have one question for Tommy...if you live in Oz, why the f--- do you even care?  But in the future, please quit trying to make any of your points by ignoring the context of my posts and twisting them to your own intentions. As you so eloquently state in your own signature line, you really don't know anything!

I have clearly stated that I would just like concrete, evidentiary support of either position and an open and reasonable debate. So as noted above, I am going to start doing my own exploration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jeff_S said:

I just have one question for Tommy...if you live in Oz, why the f--- do you even care?  But in the future, please quit trying to make any of your points by ignoring the context of my posts and twisting them to your own intentions. As you so eloquently state in your own signature line, you really don't know anything!

I have clearly stated that I would just like concrete, evidentiary support of either position and an open and reasonable debate. So as noted above, I am going to start doing my own exploration.

Ok, so I "deliberately twisting your words" and "ignoring the context" (not entirely sure how I could misconstrue words like "GA Alphabet are all crying wolf" Exactly under what context should I read them?) but it sure beats your little tirade of ad hominem and not really answering my questions. 1) please supply one good reason why big airlines want to take over and spend millions / billions on providing ATC service for free? 2) Do you know more about ATC Privatisation than Captain Sullenberg?

I must commend you on your effort of doing the  extra readings. I, on the other hand, choose to take the intellectual short cut and exhibit some personal humility to believe tha 150 groups of pilots and operators know a lot more than I do. 

And why do I even care? Well, Jeff, it will pain me to see you selling your beloved Ovation simply because you can't afford to fly with exorbent ATC bills... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jeff_S said:

I just have one question for Tommy...if you live in Oz, why the f--- do you even care?  But in the future, please quit trying to make any of your points by ignoring the context of my posts and twisting them to your own intentions. As you so eloquently state in your own signature line, you really don't know anything!

I have clearly stated that I would just like concrete, evidentiary support of either position and an open and reasonable debate. So as noted above, I am going to start doing my own exploration.

The only way to achieve that is to block Tommy from your feed. ;)   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am aware of the "ignore user" feature...I have resisted using it because sometimes it's amusing to see what the trolls have to say. My skin is tough enough to laugh off our Aussie friend. To answer one of his questions, though...I have NO expertise with the ATC system, which is exactly why I'm trying to study it more! But moving on...

I have now read and analyzed the latest salvo directly from Bill Shuster, as well as the actual document provided by the Trump administration laying out their preferred approach. And about a dozen other articles that were published in various forums, mostly just using those two sources for citation. I also have read two different studies -- one from Embry Riddle, and one from MITRE -- that analyzed the "privatized" versions of ATC in place in Western countries and tried to show if there is any benefit or harm. (The differ in their conclusions.) But the latest thing I've read just came out by AvWeb this morning, which I thought was a rational analysis by someone on the inside.  I don't know if anyone else here cares about this but I'll post it anyway just in case...this is copyright AvWeb:

Why Privatizing ATC Would Break The System

By James Van Laak | November 19, 2017

One of the most important conversations going on in aviation today has to do with the proposal to remove the air traffic control organization from the FAA and turn it into a privatized entity. Proponents claim that this would free the function from the bureaucracy and petty budgetary pressures of the FAA and lead to more efficient operations. They also claim that it would result in more rapid modernization of the air traffic control system.

Opponents to the privatization proposal base most of their arguments on three points. First, they point out that air traffic control function is working well today, and that there is no reason to fix something that is not broken. Second, they claim that moving to a privatized system will inevitably lead to a user-fee system dominated by the airlines, which would penalize the general aviation sector. Third, they point out that this entity would have a monopoly control of the air traffic control system with minimal oversight by the government, a recipe for corruption and gross mismanagement.

As a pilot with over 47 years of experience operating under the FAA’s authority and five years as a senior executive at the agency, I have a strong opinion about these issues. In summary, I find the privatization arguments to be weak and driven by political dogma, and the arguments against completely valid. 

But beyond my traditional aviation credentials, I am also an expert in the design and operation of complex systems. This leads to a different and, in my view, more important conclusion about the issue based not on whom the controllers work for, but how the system works.

Air transportation as we know it today is a complex system that requires many different elements to work together well, not just ATC. Obviously air traffic control is a critical piece of that system, but it is neither the only one nor even the most important. Other elements are required to ensure that the flying public is safely transported to their destinations. These include:

  • Pilot training, certification, regulation and enforcement
  • Airport design, construction and operation
  • Aircraft design, construction and operation
  • Aircraft maintenance and modification regulation and oversight
  • Avionics and navigation systems design, certification, maintenance and oversight
  • Air traffic procedures, including airspace design and special-use airspace management
  • Weather information dissemination and air traffic avoidance procedures
  • And many more

Our safe and effective air transportation system works as well as it does because all of these elements are predominantly under the control of one agency that can make them work together. Airmen are trained and overseen to make sure that safe operating practices are followed. Flight standards inspectors ensure that the navigational and airport systems comply with established standards. Aircraft are designed and maintained to be safe. Aircraft navigation systems meet the requirements of the air traffic control system so that both know what to expect from each other, across countless combinations of ground, air, airspace and weather conditions. 

This integration would not be as effective if the many functions belonged to different organizations even within the government. Pulling a critical piece out of the government to create a new and far more contentious barrier to coordination would be damaging and would certainly result in more near misses and more.

It is true that some countries have implemented a privatized air traffic control function, but their ability to do so benefits from American leadership of the overall aviation system. FAA regulations, standards and processes form the foundation for most of the world and thereby hold the system together.

All pilots know that the FAA has problems in the way it does its job, so it is fair to ask how many of these might honestly be made better by moving air traffic to a privatized organization. By my count, damn few.  If perchance some improvement was found in one or two functions, it would be far outweighed by the breakage caused when air traffic was separated from the world air transportation system as a whole.

This leads to the most important conclusion of all: Air traffic control should not be privatized because doing so would gravely weaken the safety and effectiveness of the premier air transportation system on the planet.

James Van Laak is a former Deputy Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation at the FAA. He served in the U.S. Air Force as a F-106 and A-10 pilot and worked at DARPA and at NASA as a manager on the International Space Station.

---

I'm coming to the same general conclusion. I don't think anyone can claim that the current system is perfect, but there is room for improvement around the margins that don't require a wholesale replacement such as what is proposed.  I am assembling the facts in my head to support this assertion, so if I get the time and energy I'll put it all together.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an informative article from a former pilot and FAA insider on why privatization of FAA is a bad idea.  Check it out.  The summation:  The world looks to the USA and the FAA as the “glue” that binds the worlds air traffic system.  Safety and continued function of the system relies on the FAA.  Multiple scenarios and areas are discussed.

I have read nothing that sways me into believing that privatization will result in a safer and more efficient system.

Is there anything behind this being a cash grab for the aviation trust fund $ by big G or those that would lead the private entity?

I would like more information on what $ are there for projects/operation of FAA.  How much is coming from taxes to “non-users” of system vs. from seat charges and fuel tax?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.