The FAA’s efforts to modernize the air traffic control system — known as NextGen — has had such a bumpy rollout that costs associated with some of the core technology outweigh potential benefits, according to a report by the Transportation Department’s Inspector General. A story in the Wall Street Journal says the IG’s report “raises new questions about the design, deployment and projected benefits” of ADS-B. The IG’s report predicts that taxpayer investments in ADS-B “now outweigh the projected benefits of the program by as much as $588 million.” Read the full Wall Street Journal article here.
Reader Interactions
Share this story
Become better informed pilot.
Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.
As an avionics engineer and supplier of flight planning and moving map software, the MITRE Capstone project and subsequently ADSB is a marvelous technology. It does work as you can now see by downloading any of the APPs showing traffic all over the world. My company makes an ADSB reciever for a cost of under $50. But the posted comments also prove that the FAA is having a rough time. But they have stated that it is five years away so stop complaining. On the other hand, the FAA? and regulations? About five years ago the FAA create the HEMS A201 regulation requiring air-med pilots to find and know all the obstacles (aka towers) along their emergency flight path. The database for this was issued every TWO MONTHS. IT TOOK THE FAA FIVE YEARS TO COME UP WITH A DIALY OBSTACLE DATABASE and that was only due to my bosses prompting them to do so.
It is an ADS-B transmitter that is needed for under $50….. NOT just an ADS-B receiver. Capstone was a conceptual and practical disaster, only fueled by huge inappropriate federal subsidies. It died a merciful death when the money ran out. The same or better worthy objectives and far better capability could have readily been achieved with EXISTING GNSS based GPSSUs, a decent low cost FMS with LNAV/baro VNAV, and RNP, along with an inexpensive VDL Mode 2 based D/L. Both Capstone and its precedessor HALASKA were examples of a program that wasted huge sums of taxpayer dollars to no long term benefit whatsoever. Except for seriously flawed FAA policies and lack of vision, better and far more permanent advances could have been achieved for far less money. Just fly into PAJN or PAKT or PAPG or PAWG or PASI now, on any bad weather day, using the RNP procedures that we need globally, in a modern transport jet, and see what Capstone could have instead been for under about $2500/GA airplane, …had FAA just not fouled it up with (obsolete) WAAS based avionics, unnecessary UAT, and ridiculous ADS-R.
I do agree for the most part but a $50 ModeS trani is a bit cheap but you make a good point. Capstone was a brilliant idea (basically using GPS data to report positiion nearly to 100 feet or so as compared to the lousy radar and its cost. MITRE was certainly “overfunded” except for the project to create an elcheapo ADSB “unit”
for gliders and the like. But I also have a real bone to pick on the MITRE deal. MITRE is an Federal Contract Reseach Center (FCRC). That’s sort of a think-and-do tank that does not use govt employees and I think is supposed to be “nonprofit”. I call the Capstone folks after all was done and asked about getting the design data for their govt paid for elcheapo receiver. MITRE wanted $10,000 for the License and the schematics and coce. BUT IT GETS REALLY BAD. When the FAA first created their ADSB web site, the key statue was, “This program is being paid for using taxpayer money and as a result, all of the mecanical, electical, hardware, and software will be freely avaiable AT NO COST TO INTERESTED PARTIES. Two years later, the removed that statement and turned everything over to the RTCA. Joining that org costs and getting the documentation is not free. I am hoping that in the next few years, you will able to swap out your ModeC xpndr with an ADSB compliant in and out box for under $1000.
And here is one more tasty titbit. If you recall the early days of modems, consider that the VHF AWOS channel (voice bandwidth) could have had a tone message broadcast following each voice message (of a few seconds duration…sounding like a tone) which would have been the radar image data that could be decoded for 99 cents and displayed in the cockpit. This could have been done YEARS AGO, giving the pilot NWS radar in the cockpit for the cost of a $5 box. But then again, if you have a cellphone, you can now get better radar for free.
Best to stay away from all this NextGen stuff until all the bugs have been worked out of it. The FAA NEVER meets any deadlines imposed on it but expects the aviation industry to snap to and meet its deadlines or suffer the consequences. Congressional mandates are regularly ignored and dismissed by the bureaucracy and nothing ever comes of it, no one is held accountable. The Congress is a toothless tiger when it comes to managing the bureaucracy over which it presides.
This is a common problem with ALL government programs and operations, Too many people that have to do SOMETHING to show they are doing something. Less effort on TSO and more on making it work. Regulations = CONTROL = government.
ADS-B program: While the FAA is requiring us to buy all the stuff, they are not equipping themselves. ATC has no access to ADS-B traffic data.
ADS-B out: It works, but the FAA’s approach to have a FAA blessed (TSO) WAAS GPS source (for both UAT and Mode-S-ES) is driving the price out of site. I am currently using the Skyguard TWX unit coupled to an iFly GPS in my Experimental . It’s relatively inexpensive and works great. But it is not TSO’d, primarily because it doesn’t have the high $$ TSO WAAS GPS puck. It has a WAAS GPS puck, but not a TSO approved WAAS GPS.
TIS-B: With the vast majority of traffic using Mode-C, the ADS-B traffic is a bit sketchy as it relies on Center traffic radar data to be transferred to the ADS-B tower and rebroadcast. That results in traffic frequently popping up then disappearing and the traffic display is always a bit aged, so you have to look ahead at where the traffic was headed to find them when they are in visual range. However, it is a good tool to let you know where to look for traffic and calls out traffic usually well before it is within visual range.
FIS-B: The on line weather is great. Airport data gets pretty stale during the course of a flight. Radar data gets pretty stale if there isn’t much going on. However, if there is active precipitation in the area, FSI-B starts broadcasting constant radar updates at roughly 3 minute intervals. That’s great. As for the FAA’s selling point that you get all the TFR data, that is simply a lie. TFR data only shows up on my unit if I do a WiFi update on my GPS. I get NO TFR data from FIS-B, which is not what the FAA advertises.
Drawbacks: With the price of the TSO approved WAAS GPS, the cost is unaffordable. It doesn’t have to be that way. Make it more affordable and more planes will be equipped. The onus is on the FAA to relax their over-regulation to make it happen. I would suggest something on the order of not requiring the TSO stamped equipment unless the aircraft is commercial use.
With most of the traffic using Mode-C (and likely to stay that way in GA thanks to the cost to equip), center’s radar coverage at outlying airports is sketchy. With ADS-B reception from the ADS-B towers being line of sight, ADS-B coverage is also sketchy at outlying airports. That makes it kind of useless when you need the traffic call outs in the busier airspace around airports. If it was affordable to equip and more planes were equipped, then the ADS-B tower and radar coverage become moot as the ADS-B units will talk to each other. But once again, the FAA believes it will happen if the regulations say it will, but they feel no obligation to help industry make the equipment affordable.
The same line of sight issue exists with the FIS-B coverage for weather. Sure would be nice to pick up the weather while warming the engine rather than waiting until airborne. Also, The FAA needs to fix the TFR data.
Benefits: Traffic awareness while the traffic is still beyond visual range and up to date weather information, including current AWOS data at destination airports and current NEXRAD radar when the weather is sketchy is great. I have used the weather data numerous times to navigate around cells to get into an airport.
Boondoggle? Perhaps. Benefits? Definitely. Too Expensive? Definitely.
And what about those pesky non-electric planes? The FAA just wants them to disappear, but that’s not going to happen. So the FAA’s solution is to continue restricting where they can fly by regulating them unobtainable requirements, like ADS-B for certain airspace access.
What needs to be done is an entire NextGen reset.
There is simply NO WAY they (FAA) are EVER going to accommodate UAVs, to military needs, to GA, to Air Transport at any feasible cost, on the path they’re on. ADS (-A, -B, and -C but NOT -R), while good in concept, ONLY are usable as a small part of the C-N-S triad, related to properly defining and using 3D and 4D RNP based automated trajectory separation. Hence, FAA’s present flawed ADS-B needs to be completely scrapped and totally rethought, in terms of any present flawed WAAS NIC/NAC based TSOs, while they completely revoke 91.225 and 91.227, and properly set a C-N-S trajectory (RNP) based foundation for Nextgen.
Properly done, and after dumping any connection to WAAS, ADS-B could be reasonably implemented for less than a few hundred $ per airplane, without even needing installed equipment, if FAA had any idea about what’s really needed for NextGen, and the appropriate role and relevance of the S part of the C-N-S RNP trajectory based triad.
At present they (FAA and their contractor and consultants) haven’t a clue. Even the DOT IG has recently finally figured it out (in his comments that NextGen completely fails to properly understand and accommodate vehicles from UAVs, on up).
So I wouldn’t spend so much as even a dime on 91.225 or 91.227 for my airplane at this point. And smart airlines globally have already largely figured this out too.
……..it’s about the money. The FAA being in “cahoots” with the avionics people. It’s an I’ll scratch your back as you scratch mine. It gives the avionics people another source of big bucks and creates an even bigger FAA bureauacracy of “importance”…………
What needs to be done, have Congress essentially strip the FAA down to its core mission and needs. I have heard about the declining pilot population and the FAA continues to grow. Something is not right here. Common sense has to prevail. The FAA has gotten way too big to be manageable and it is a bureaucracy that is out of control. Just look at this Next Gen, Certification, medical requirements and the FAA telling Congress we don’t have the time to re-write the regulations of Part 23 after they have been given two years to do it by “LAW”. What does that tell you. They are just out of touch and too big.
“The report also noted that the FAA has warned “general aviation” pilots—mostly private pilots—they shouldn’t rely on ADS-B information to separate their planes from others in the airspace. Some general-aviation pilots relying on this data “inadvertently flew their aircraft into restricted airspace that was either unmarked or incorrectly located on their ADS-B devices,” the report said. The FAA subsequently cited these pilots with violations.”
Just as predicted by many highly knowledgeable and experienced inside industry operator, technical pilot, and engineering experts, over 5 years ago – well before FAA (and its vendor and major consultant) committed to go down this seriously flawed NextGen path!!!!
And the trouble is just starting. Now a headlong rush to a massive $40B FAA failure, with a seriously conceptually flawed set of year 2020 FAR 91.225 and 91.227 rules, that have virtually no hope of success in making any substantial improvement whatsoever, except perhaps to further for another two decades FAA’s completely outdated and obsolete hand-carried ATS concept of WAAS fueled (completely unnecessary) “Pseudo radar”.
Here it comes. MLS all over again.
Just another government boondoggle!! Most government projects are like this. They start off with good intentions but nearly all end up in the mud!!