|
Homeland defense
July 2007
By Sandra I. Erwin
Air Traffic Technology Drive Stalled by Colliding Agendas
 Burgeoning growth in commercial aviation and the increasing pressure on air traffic control is spurring debate on whether U.S. air travel can remain safe and secure.
At the heart of the controversy is an estimated $20 billion plan to modernize air traffic control, airport management and passenger screening operations. The proposed upgrades — backed by the Bush administration and major airlines — would automate air traffic control functions and create a high-tech network for the government and the private sector to manage aviation operations.
Supporters hail the new technology as essential to easing the worsening congestion in U.S. airspace.
The modernization effort, which the Federal Aviation Administration dubbed “Next Gen,” has proved divisive on several fronts. Its opponents feature a motley collection of constituencies — general aviation groups, small businesses and air-traffic controllers. They argue that the FAA’s suggested funding mechanism to pay for the new technology via “user fees” from aircraft operators and major airlines would unfairly penalize small aircraft operators. They also maintain that the FAA is putting too much emphasis on automation and ultimately wants to privatize air traffic control, which could undermine public safety.
The agency has asked Congress to approve funding and user fees to begin buying the new technology in fiscal year 2008. The idea is to raise at least half a billion dollars in user fees and seek the rest from private financing in the open capital markets.
House and Senate committees have revised the FAA legislation several times, in an effort to satisfy the concerns of the competing interest groups, and so far the outcome remains uncertain.
Backers of the modernization plan grouse that the longer the project is stalled by politics, the more difficult it will be to handle the increasing demand for airspace capacity.
Next Gen represents a “transformation to a new system that will use satellite-based technologies and state-of-the-art procedures to handle the increasing volume of air traffic, while further improving safety and security,” said Gerald L. Dillingham, an analyst at the Government Accountability Office.
Government officials contend that the technology is badly needed to improve security, because it would allow the FAA and the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense to share a common, real-time, picture of the national airspace.
Commercial aviation not only needs to be better protected from terrorist attacks but also must operate more efficiently, said Stephen Alterman, president of the Cargo Airlines Association.
“Estimates vary, but it’s clear that commercial aviation will double during the next two decades,” Alterman told an industry conference. “We are on a very short window.”
He charged that narrow political agendas currently are “holding up” modernization.
“We have to get away from World War II ground-based systems and move to satellite-based systems for managing air traffic,” Alterman said. “The FAA has recognized this … We need legislation to do what we need to do.”
Among the major components of the Next Gen system is a technology called “automatic dependent surveillance broadcast.” ADSB is a satellite-based system that allows aircraft to broadcast their position to others. The FAA requested $80 million in fiscal year 2007 and $85.7 million in 2008 for this technology. The FAA estimated it will cost $1.2 billion to equip all U.S. aircraft and air traffic control facilities with the new system.
Another element of Next Gen is a “system wide information management” network called SWIM. The FAA said this technology is equivalent to a dedicated internet for airspace users that will give government agencies and aviation operators access to information on airspace activity and weather conditions. The FAA requested $24 million for this program in 2007 and $21.3 million in 2008.
The entire Next Gen system includes 18 programs and is expected to cost up to $22 billion.
For fiscal year 2008, the FAA is requesting $2.46 billion in capital funds, $2.3 billion of which is for airspace modernization initiatives.
Officials acknowledged that the FAA has a spotty record of managing high-tech projects and has yet to convince critics and even some supporters on Capitol Hill that it is up to the challenge of running a project as complex as Next Gen.
“FAA needs to develop realistic Next Gen cost estimates, quantify expected benefits, and establish a road map for industry to follow,” said Calvin L. Scovel III, inspector general of the Department of Transportation. He cautioned that the Next Gen project “will require significant attention and oversight.”
To try to expedite the process of developing technical specifications for Next Gen, the FAA has sought help from other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, Defense and NASA.
Outside assistance is important to the FAA because it is not clear that the agency has the adequate technical and managerial talent to carry out this project, Dillingham told the House transportation and infrastructure subcommittee on aviation.
The FAA’s air traffic control modernization remains on GAO’s list of “high risk programs” because of the agency’s history of management and acquisition problems that contributed to cost growth, schedule slippages and performance shortfalls, he said.
Next Gen technologies are critical to the future of aviation, said Robert A. Sturgell, FAA deputy administrator.
The ADSB is the centerpiece, he told the subcommittee. It uses GPS satellite signals to provide air traffic controllers and pilots with precise information on aircraft position. This will help keep aircraft safely separated in the sky and on runways, he said. Aircraft transponders receive GPS signals and use them to determine the aircraft’s exact position in the sky, which is combined with other data and broadcast to other aircraft and controllers.
“When properly equipped with ADSB, both pilots and controllers will, for the first time, see the same real-time displays of air traffic, thereby substantially improving safety,” Sturgell said.
The FAA already has tested the technology in Alaska, where general aviation accidents have been reduced by more than 40 percent for ADSB equipped aircraft, Sturgell said. United Parcel Service aircraft also have participated in tests in Louisville, Ky. The next area to deploy the system will be the Gulf of Mexico.
Proponents of the Next Gen system also have warned of the economic implications of failing to deploy this technology nationwide.
One of the issues is whether the U.S. aerospace industry — which would supply the new systems to the FAA — can stay technologically ahead of its European counterparts. Europe currently is pursuing a comparable modernization effort known as Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research. SESAR is smaller in scope and size than Next Gen, but has similar air traffic management goals, Sturgell said. “While SESAR focuses almost exclusively on air traffic management, Next Gen takes a ‘curb-to-curb’ approach, and includes not only air traffic control, but also airports, airport operations, security and passenger management, as well as Defense Department and DHS requirements.”
The Europeans are moving relatively fast to deploy SESAR, which raises the prospect of the United States falling behind on the technology curve, said Hans Weber, a San Diego-based aviation consultant.
“Europe has the same problems we do. It is expanding capacity to meet demand,” Weber said in an interview. “If we don’t watch out, we’ll end up having to equip our aircraft flying into Europe with the navigation equipment required by Europeans.” Australia also made a commitment last year to nationwide ADBS.
For airlines and the aerospace industry at large, Weber said, “This is a big deal.” U.S. suppliers, particularly, worry that if Europe takes the lead in deploying satellite-based navigation, European firms will gain the upper hand. “The market advantage would go to European industry if they are first providers,” Weber said.
Even if business concerns were not a factor, the United States cannot afford to not modernize its air traffic control system, he added. “Future problems are not just in air traffic management but also maintenance, safety and security.”
Satellite-based air traffic management is much more accurate than the current ground radar technology, Weber said.
When aircraft are equipped with the ADBS technology, they will be constantly broadcasting their position not only to the controllers on the ground but also to other airplanes in the air. That in itself would reduce the risk of collisions, said Weber, and also would allow for more efficient use of the available airspace.
From a security standpoint, this technology could help the government better cope with a terrorist attack, Weber noted, because it provides a wealth of data about the status of an aircraft.
“If terrorists try to take over aircraft, this technology can help avert that,” he said. “On 9/11 we didn’t have software in place that alerted air traffic controllers to the completely unusual occurrence of four transponders switched off within an hour and a half,” Weber said. “Statistically, that never happens. Something was terribly wrong and we didn’t have anything in place to alert controllers that they should take a closer look.”
The networking technology in Next Gen is “important to DHS,” said Weber. It not only would alert authorities on the ground about a potential hijacking but also would warn about a deterioration in the performance of aircraft components before a catastrophic failure occurs.
If DHS decided one day to install chemical or biological sensors aboard aircraft, the devices would be part of the network, he said. “Sensors would alert the ground that something is wrong.” As part of the research work going into Next Gen, Weber added, NASA has demonstrated a system that allows ground crews to land an aircraft if the pilot is incapacitated.
It is unfortunate that these important modernization plans are getting bogged down by political mudslinging, Weber said.
Air traffic controllers are a powerful constituency that is fighting the Next Gen program, he said. The controllers’ unions fear that the modernization plan will lead to the outsourcing and privatization of air traffic control operations.
In Weber’s opinion, controllers’ jobs would not be jeopardized by the new system. On the contrary, he said, more controllers would be needed to meet the larger demand for air travel. “It’s been demonstrated that even if you double the number of controllers you still run into a wall in a few years if you are trying to increase capacity,” said Weber.
National Air Traffic Controllers Association President Patrick Forrey recently told lawmakers that he favors modernization, but he would like to see the FAA “work more collaboratively” with controllers in the development and deployment of new air traffic control technology. “The failure of the agency to consult its controller and technician workforce in its attempts to modernize the ATC system cost the American taxpayer $35 billion dollars since 1981,” Forrey said.
He characterized Next Gen as a “vague concept” that eventually would drain funds from an already strained controllers’ workforce and, ultimately, compromise safety. “The FAA is hanging its hat on modernization of the system to help offset the loss of retiring controllers and to make the system more efficient to meet expected growth in air traffic … Because the FAA has taken no steps to seek input from controllers on the development of Next Gen or other technologies, we are holding out little hope that any significant strides will be made in the near future,” Forrey said.
The nation’s 14,000 air traffic controllers have been awaiting improvements in technology for decades, Forrey said. “Controllers were supposed to be using GPS-based navigation systems by 1997; in 2007 we are still using ground-based radar throughout the system.”
The FAA inspires little confidence that it can accomplish these ambitious goals, Forrey said. “I fear that Congress is going to fail to hold it accountable and write them another blank check, leaving controllers to handle an increased workload and users to bear the consequences.”
The user-fee scheme favored by the FAA also is a deal breaker for controllers, who believe that airspace management should be a governmental function. “We view the administration’s proposal as the first step to privatizing air traffic control in the United States,” Forrey said.
The current method of funding the system — ticket taxes, airline fees and fuel taxes — provides more revenue than the president’s proposed user fees, he added. This user fee-based system also would be susceptible to market downturns, such as those that occurred after 9/11 and during an outbreak of SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) several years ago.
Also combating the FAA is the Alliance for Aviation Across America — a coalition of aviation enthusiasts, local airports and small businesses from rural communities. In newspaper ads circulating on Capitol Hill, the alliance charged that the user fees amount to corporate welfare for airlines. “The big airlines want you to believe that a four-passenger turboprop and a 400-passenger 747 impose the same cost on the system and should pay the same amount in taxes,” said AAAA. “The Government Accountability Office has twice concluded that the commercial airlines drive the FAA’s costs through their hubbing operations at congested airports.”
Weber, the aviation consultant, agreed that user fees are exceedingly contentious. Large airlines like the proposed fee structure because they use 75 percent of the air traffic management capacity and pay 93 percent of the cost. Business aviation and general aviation obviously don’t like it, as they currently get subsidized.
Please email your comments to SErwin@ndia.org
Back To Top
|
Search Tips
