ATC, The Big Jump

            The Fundamentals of our current Air Traffic Control system are centered around a 40-year-old computer system, known as Host. This system has many aspects that make it work; most importantly, it is based upon ground based radar. This radar is what makes it possible for the air traffic controllers to see the aircraft on their screens. The Host system also connects the entire airspace system and it is functional, however this old system is limited and inefficient. Sara Breselor, the author of the article, “Why 40-Year-Old Tech is Still Running America’s Air Traffic Control”, helps us understand the limitations by stating that, “It can handle a limited amount of traffic, and controllers cannot see anything outside of their own airspace—when they hand off a plane to a contiguous airspace, it vanishes from their radar.” (Breselor, 2014) This is a pretty significant shortcoming to the system, which is leading to the proposed NextGen system. This is a system that will very efficiently connect the air traffic control system, and simplify the lives of both pilots, and controllers. It is also projected by the FAA, that “NextGen will produce an additional $11.4 billion in benefits”. (FAA, 2016) This system works through a satellite based system, known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast, or ADS-B. This surveillance system is going to replace the radar that is used currently. This GPS technology will make it possible to have coverage where it does not exist in today’s airspace.

            General Aviation has had a pretty strong opposition to the privatization of Air Traffic Control. Privatization would create a monopoly on the traffic control service in the United States, and would be dominated by the airlines and other commercial aviation operators. The EAA believes that privatization of Air Traffic Control is a “power grab by the nation’s airlines.” (EAA, 2016) In a statement provided by the EAA CEO/chairman Jack Pelton, he is recorded stating, “ATC privatization will put the big squeeze on general aviation in a way that threatens the individual freedom of flight and hands control of America’s airspace to commercial and airline interests.” (EAA, 2016) This opinion is not unheard throughout the industry. The National Business Aviation Association has the same opinion, that, “because airlines and their employees (like pilots unions) will hold a majority of seats on the board of the new non-profit, they will have priority to make "decisions over access to airports and airspace" in their own interest, rather than the interest of the entire public.” (Golson, 2016) It is not unreasonable to believe that the larger carriers will take advantage of the new system and mold it to their liking. On the other side of the coin, Paul Rinaldi, the President of the air traffic controllers’ union, NATCA, believes that the proposed legislation for privatization,

addresses the union's "primary issues of concern." It ensures that air traffic controllers keep their union-negotiated contracts, that safety and efficiency remain priorities, that ATC has a "stable, predictable funding stream," and that air traffic control service "all segments of the aviation community," from commercial carriers to general aviation, and at airports large and small. (Golson, 2016)

Privatization is being viewed by supporters, as a way to modernize ATC, and help increase the efficiency of the system.

            Air traffic control has been privatized in other countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The private operator in Canada is called Nav Canada. It is a non-profit organization, and as stated by the Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards, “Nav Canada runs one of the safest systems in the world.” (Meyer, 2016) This non-profit organization was actually the model used for the Shuster Bill, proposing privatization in the United States. Nav Canada has won three IATA Eagle Awards for being the world’s best ATC provider. This is a clear depiction of how efficient the Canadian system is. This system is funded through the aviation customers, rather than government subsidies. Nav Canada states that they, “strive to keep customer charges stable, while improving safety and flight efficiency.”  (Nav Canada, 2003) This funding fits into how this organization works. The funding is used to invest in their infrastructure, and upgrade their systems. Nav Canada even developed their own air traffic management technology.

            On February 3^rd, 2016 the Aviation Innovation, Reform and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act was proposed to congress by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman, Bill Shuster and the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman Frank LoBiondo. This is the original bill that calls for privatization. Shortly after the Act was proposed, “House Leadership shelved the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act amid diverse opposition to its air traffic control (ATC) reform provisions.” (Drake, 2016) This left the Senate to concentrate on coming up with their own FAA reauthorization. In July, the Senate passed the reauthorization bill that extends and authorizes the FAA programs at current funding levels through September of 2017. This latest FAA reauthorization extended the FAA’s purview of air traffic control, and this is where the ATC privatization debacle stands right now.

            I really do believe that air traffic control does have a good chance at being more efficient once it is a non-profit, private entity. The ATC system does need to be updated, that is for certain, but in order for that to occur, there still needs to be money flowing to them. It doesn’t matter whether ATC is run by the FAA or a private company if there aren’t huge updates and an effective way to manage them. Clearly, Canada has a good system, and it is comforting to know that the model formed for the bill that went through congress was based upon it. If we, the United States, can keep our system as close to the Canadian system as possible, I think we might be alright, but if we pull the U S of A self-mutilation to our system, as we have seen before in this country, I think we might have a lot of unhappy controllers and a lot of unhappy pilots.

References

Breselor, S. (2015, February 24). Why 40-year-old tech is still running america’s air traffic                              control. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2015/02/air-traffic-control/

Drake, T., Doersch, P. (2016 February 29). House shelves airr act, senate to pursue own faa reauthorization legislation. Retrieved from http://www.natlawreview.com/article/house-shelves-airr-act-senate-to-pursue-own-faa-reauthorization-legislation

EAA. (2016, February 12). Eaa opposition to atc privatization bill moves to full house. Retrieved from https://www.eaa.org/en/eaa/eaa-news-and-aviation-news/news/02-12-2016-eaa-opposition-to-atc-privatization-bill-moves-to-full-house

FAA. (2016, February 23). Nextgen works. Retrieved from

             http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/works/#content

Goleson, J. (2016, February 12) Congress wants to privatize us air traffic control, but what doesit mean for flyers?. Retrieved from http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/12/10979334/air-traffic-control-privatization-airr-act-congress

Meyer, J. (2016, February 16). Free the skies, privatizing air traffic control. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer/2016/02/16/free-the-skies-privatizing-air-traffic-control/#48c88d0c46ac

Nav Canada. (2003) Meet nav Canada. Retrieved from http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/about-us/Pages/who-we-are.aspx