What do they want?
Posted by Paul Cox on September 22nd, 2009
From a news story in Aviation Week and Space Technology:
The FAA is promising to act on the recommendations in a report submitted Sept. 9 by the RTCA task force on near-term implementation of NextGen. “The stakeholders have spoken, and given us a clear set of objectives,” FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt told a conference held here last week to unveil the report.
The report recommends operational capabilities that can be implemented between now and 2018 to provide early benefits for users and “improve the performance of the National Airspace System [NAS] during the transition” to NextGen, said task force Chairman Steve Dickson, Delta Air Lines senior vice president of flight operations, at the conference organized by Avionics magazine.
The RTCA is a quasi-governmental organization that helps guide aviation infrastructure investment and development. They set up a task force to try and lay out a path for the FAA to follow in the near-term and mid-term as it rolls out NextGen.
It will probably come as no surprise that the task force basically said “we don’t want to spend money if we’re not going to get a return on it”. Unfortunately for the FAA, that means that a lot of the stuff that the agency has been pushing in terms of NextGen is a waste, because it’s not going to provide the users with any serious return on their investment.
“Users cannot afford to invest without getting a return on their investment,” says Dickson. The report recommends a building-block approach based on deploying available capabilities, rather than on accelerating future technologies. “The task force’s focus was on near-term transition issues such as policies, procedures, certification and standards,” he says. “In many cases the technology is already there but has outpaced the policies and procedures needed to use it.”
I find this interesting. What they’re basically saying here is that the FAA is putting too much time and energy into stuff that isn’t invented or developed yet; instead, it needs to get up to speed on existing technology and capabilities.
This is something I’ve preached here at the Follies for some time. The FAA’s big reliance on NextGen’s fancier, gee-whizzier technology items comes at a cost; they aren’t invented yet, but the FAA is asking everyone to buy into them (ie, lay out a gob of money) without really knowing if it’s worthwhile yet.
We see this in the next paragraph from the article:
One possible surprise in the report is the lack of mention of automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B), viewed as a cornerstone technology for NextGen. But Ford argues its omission is not a surprise because a dearth of near-term benefits from ADS-B prevents users from closing the business case for investing in equipping their aircraft.
This is huge, really. ADS-B is probably the single biggest item that the FAA has been making noise about over the past year or three, and yet the RTCA task force basically said “don’t bother with it right now”. The reason is simple- it doesn’t give anyone anything they can actually USE.
Of course, the myriad of technologies being pitched by corporations represented by the industry lobbying group AIA (now headed by ex-FAA Administrator Marion Blakey) are heavily reliant upon ADS-B. Her clients want the FAA to go whole-hog on the ADS-B program for a simple reason- they stand to make megabucks.
The RTCA lays out what they really want to see from NextGen here:
The report recommends operational capabilities for early implementation in five domains: surface operations, runway access, metroplex airspace, cruise and NAS access. There are also recommendations in two “cross-cutting” areas: data communications and integrated air traffic management.
Basically, they want stuff that will save them money. They’ll invest (if they have to) in new equipment, but they want to see more or less immediate returns on it.
The thing is that many of THESE things are things that actually could be done relatively soon with some proper leadership. They propose RNP/RNAV routes that allow better efficiency in crowded metro airspaces (ie, New York City), better information integration that allows them to know how long their delays are and when they can expect a release and when they can expect to arrive at their destination, more safety while on the ground, and so forth.
The article ends with what’s becoming more and more standard. Over the past couple of years, as the FAA’s relentless drumbeat of propaganda about NextGen and their lies (like the “airplanes have to fly zig-zag route to stay over radar sites” lie that’s been endlessly repeated in media coverage) has taken hold of everyone and convinced them of a pressing need for NextGen, I’ve noticed an increase in language that suggests that the airlines should get significant financial help in paying for all of this fabulous technology.
The task force also identifies “overarching enablers” that would speed the transition to NextGen by incentivizing equipage. These include reducing the cost to users through low-interest loans, direct subsidies, tax breaks or a “NextGen Equipage Bank.” Other enablers would increase the benefits to users and include the concept of providing service based on “best equipped, best served” rather than first come, first served.
They’re saying that there has to be concrete benefits to get airlines to equip their aircraft for NextGen… but notice the language about “low-interest loans” and “subsidies” and so forth. We’ll see more and more of this in the future; they will argue that they’d love to be able to implement NextGen but gosh darn it, they just don’t have the money so delays will continue, but hey, if the government would just pony up a few billion here or there, everything would be greatly improved!
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:16 am
Perhaps the people that facilitate leading edge could share their thoughts…
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:51 am
Paul,
The only concrete benefits the users will see from their investments is from their investments in concrete runways.
While technology can improve some operations to a small degree, nothing gets operational bang for the buck like adding another all weather usable runway to an overloaded airport.
Grump
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
How much money was thrown down the drain with the Microwave Landing System. A program that was supposed to be the cat’s meow in approach sequencing with staggered and curving approach paths. It didn’t work! Much of this crap that the FAA is trying to invent won’t work either. Plant some new runways! That is the only short term, if you can call it short, fix.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Where would you plant the runways?
September 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Next gen even by the FAA’s rosy predictions is good for what….5% more capacity at the busy airports in the northeast?
FAAGUY, I know this won’t buy you a bigger boat with your golden parachute nextgen job but spending a couple of billion dollars per each extra runway in that northeast log jam could easily drop delays 20% because of the ripple effect .
Buy up a bunch of homes, use some of this stimulus money and lawyer up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride if you actually want to fix it
September 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 pm
FAAGUY,
How about Calverton Long Island? It already has 2 10,000 foot rwys capable of heavy jets.
September 22nd, 2009 at 8:02 pm
“couple of billion dollars per each extra runway in that northeast log jam”
1 rwy at STL was $1B+
1 rwy at ATL was $1.2B+
They are expecting to spend $20B to build 4 rwys at ORD (finally, parallels). This price also includes some terminal and control tower work.
How much do you think we would need to spend to build just one rwy at LGA/JFK/EWR? I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it, I would just like to see what the price tag would be. I also wonder if there is the political leadership to withstand the pressure from everyone who disagrees with the proposal.
September 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 am
FAAGuy,
Just like the MLS, just like “Sector Suites”, just like ICSS, just like “Structured Staffing”, “NextGEN” will be “NoGEN”.
“NoGEN” will be a wad of cash that went to shitty contractors doing shitty work, installing non-redundant shitty equipment based on undeveloped shitty technology, with Marion Blakey lining her shitty pockets with blood money.
Pretty shitty if you ask me.
Some aviation problems technology can solve. For everything else, there’s runways.
Grump
note to Paul: Glad to see you’re back. SG
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:18 am
I’m confused. Four years ago, Snakey told us FAA was going out of business. Now all she does over at AIA is run her filthy sewer of a piehole about spending billions of taxpayer dollars at FAA/on that thing called Nextgen.
We know where FAA Guy will get “planted after he(she?)retires. At one of the AIA client companies Snakey now whores for.
Oh, are we still running FAA like a business ?
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 am
Hey FAA Guy,
Just wondering where you are planning on putty runways at EWR or LGA. I’m pretty sure the state of NJ is not willing to give up the Turnpike for a 3rd parallel to the 4s/22s and not willing to give up US 1/9, or the on/off ramps around the airports to parallel 11/29 which in most cases based upon weight/wind not even a feasible runway for arrivals/departures.
As for LGA, are you planning on doing it up like the did in Japan and building a floating runway our there in the water, or do you want to move the Grand Central Parkway (278), the Worlds Fair, or other landmarks in that area?
Just wondering.
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Nextgen is a sick joke cooked up by Made Marion lo feather her own nest, a very popular move by those with power in our nations capital. Just remember- there is no Champagne in the Champagne room! It’s a SCAM!!!
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
My plan would be to close LGA, split their ops to SWF and ISP, expand SWF to 4 parallel runways, and build a high speed rail to NYC and down NJ. It would be about a 20 minute train ride from NYC to SWF, JFK and EWR would be a bit more efficient without having to worry about LGA’s airspace. EWR would be helped out by offloading some of the traffic to SWF. ISP could expand a little to give Long Islanders a few closer options. It would be a plan much like Denver, by building a large airport away from the city. SWF has lots of land around the airport that could be used, and relatively few residents around in the area to raise too much complaints about the noise. LGA is the most inefficient airport that is just stuck in the configuration they are in. Just close it, use the development of that high value land to pay for the rail development plans. SWF is 30 minutes from the Bronx 45 to downtown, by car, it is a viable option for anyone living in NYC or north, and anyone in northern NJ, CT, and parts of PA. A high speed rail to make it 20 minutes from NYC would make it the easiest airport to get to, this would be like one of those bullet trains that go 120MPH. If you build it people will come, make SWF the biggest airport in the region and close down LGA and airlines will move their ops there, and people will go there to fly out. The 3 major airports would now be spread out, with SWF, JFK, EWR and you would have a busier ISP airport out on the other end of the island. This, I think, would a real chance of lowering delays.
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Hey folks, just because his tag is “FAAguy” doesn’t make him a loon. He’s not the one who is suggesting more concrete. The runways can be built. even in NY/NJ. Sure it would cost a bundle. Likely less than the probable $50 billion + that nextgen will run. The only difference is that concrete will increase capacity. Nextgen, not so much.
September 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 am
As great as shutting down LGA sounds, I doubt the FAA would do that since they are just finishing up the completion of their brand new tower
September 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
How about connecting the NYC airports with high-speed rail, effectivly making one airport out of them?
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Comments about integrated systems, primarily linking railways to airports, are right on. This idea is never acted upon due to the political baggage that would go with it. It is so obvious that rail systems belong in the densely popuated, urbane areas. Because runways are the real answer, runways located in sparsely popuated areas are golden.
Now who will do it? Nobody. No. Bod. y. It’s a local govt thing, yet federally sponsered, and lots of bureaucrats, and politicians to deal with. The FAA? LOL. The DOT? The POTUS? States rights thing. Gov. Perry? Mayor Daley? Yea, he’d get it done…
September 24th, 2009 at 10:24 am
NextGen is primarily a plan to shift many of the costs of the air traffic system away from the FAA and onto the users.
The “cornerstone” of NextGen (at least today) is ADS-B. It will give aircraft position information for air traffic use eventually replacing the FAA’s surveillance radar systems.
The FAA had plans years ago to decommission all the long-range primary radars to save money. Most of those radar sites were already past their useful lifespan then.
9/11 demonstrated that transponders could be turned off for nefarious purposes and threw a wrench in the FAA’s plans, at least temporarily. Even after 9/11 the FAA has stated a desire to get rid of its primary radar but there are many (including the Department of Defense) who were/are against the idea.
ADS-B shifts the cost for aircraft position determination for air traffic use onto the user, who has to pay to equip his aircraft with an ADS-B transponder. The GPS satellites that are paid for and maintained (kind of) by the military.
The FAA will contract out all the ground-based receivers that get the position aircraft information from the so-called “satellite based” system. (ADS-B actually has the same line-of-sight limitations as ground-based radar, instead using ground-based receivers to get GPS-derived positions from aircraft ADS-B transponders.)
If the FAA doesn’t have to pay for its radar sites, with the exception of paying the contractor for the receivers, ADS-B shifts almost all the costs of getting aircraft position information for air traffic use away from the FAA.
In like fashion, I suspect the long-term plan is that the FAA will decommission land based navigational aids as well since GPS and other RNAV systems for aircraft navigation won’t cost the FAA a dime.
The aircraft owners (especially those with large fleets like the airlines) are just starting to get wise to this grand plan, realizing that the costs they will incur to re-equip their aircraft for ADS-B and NextGen probably won’t be offset by the benefits they will receive.
Right now the FAA is trying a media campaign to try and sell everyone on how great NextGen is and how much money it will save everyone, when it’s really a system that only saves the FAA money, makes contractors and avionics manufacturers lots of money while costing all the users of the air traffic system more.