While the Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday is being touted as a plan for the future of U.S. aviation, it could create dire consequences for the future of personal recreational flying in our nation.
That’s a warning from officials at the Experimental Aircraft Association.
The legislation (H.R. 4441) is a six-year reauthorization of the FAA that includes spinning off air traffic control services into a private not-for-profit corporation that would be administered by an independent board of directors.
The bill’s co-sponsors — Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pennsylvania), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-New Jersey), chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee — claim that the legislation will improve efficiency, lower costs, and create better technology solutions for the growing aviation community.
“EAA supports a stable, predictable funding mechanism for the national airspace system, but we oppose this bill as it is now written,” said Jack J. Pelton, EAA CEO and chairman. “To be fair, there are some good things in the bill for general aviation, which the bill’s co-sponsors say address GA concerns. In particular, that includes the prohibition of user fees, the reintroduction of aeromedical reform as originally intended, certification reform, and additional FAA authority to help deploy a future high-octane unleaded fuel.
“What is also part of the bill, however, is an ATC governance structure that heavily favors airlines and commercial interests, and creates real threats to the services that keep America’s air traffic system the safest and most effective in the world. ATC privatization carries the real possibility of putting GA in the ‘big squeeze’ regarding fees, services, airport access, and the individual freedom to fly for grassroots and recreational flying.”
EAA’s concerns with the legislation include:
Minimal GA input on airspace and access issues: In a privatized system, decisions and priorities are economically driven by those with the deepest pockets. With two seats on an 11-member governing board for the privatized ATC corporation, it would be impossible to adequately represent the broad diversity within general aviation. GA’s voice would often be overwhelmed by a board majority aligned with airlines and commercial aviation interests.
Threats to small, local airports: Most GA flights originate and land at local airports. Safety and efficiency improvements at local airports without commercial service could easily be ignored. In addition, if the corporation’s revenue is lower than expected, services to small, rural airports and to general aviation would likely be the first to be reduced or eliminated.
No civilian input in case of national emergency: After 9/11, the FAA was the only government entity that reminded everyone that the airspace belongs to the people and made sure that GA was included in the re-opening of the airspace despite opposition from security minded entities. There is no such guarantee under a privatized ATC corporation that would be subject only to the nation’s security agencies.
An extra layer of bureaucracy: A privatized corporation still takes funding to operate. The FAA would still exist as a safety agency, but would have to coordinate with another entity at all air operations levels. That creates more bureaucracy, not streamlined efficiency.
Loss of Congressional oversight: There would be no checks-and-balances system in place to ensure that the ATC corporation operates fairly, safely, and that its funds are spent wisely for the benefit of all in our public airspace system. This has been a major point of contention from the leadership of the appropriations committees in both the House and Senate, who have already stated their opposition to ATC privatization.
Questions about aeromedical reform: While the bill includes aeromedical reform language as originally intended, there are concerns that the language would become a bargaining chip during debate on the bill.
“Those involved in recreational and grassroots flying should be worried about this legislation,” Pelton said. “We already have a funding mechanism in place that will work if the FAA is properly reauthorized and funded. Any major change has to be carefully considered as to the impact on all users because fees and costs are just a small part of the puzzle. This new proposal would make it very easy for moneyed interests to roll over the freedom of all individuals to fly.”
EAA’s concerns are echoed by officals at the National Air Transportation Association (NATA),
“NATA cannot support the legislation’s proposal to create a federally chartered, not-for-profit air traffic control corporation,” said NATA President and CEO Thomas Hendricks. “We have been quite clear throughout the development of this legislation that we will not support ‘leap of faith’ proposals that place the fate of any segment of general aviation — in this case the air charter community — in the hands of a yet to be determined board of directors — especially given the fact this segment of general aviation is denied a voice in the corporation’s governance. A user-fee funded ATC corporation, controlled in perpetuity by a board of industry insiders, will place general aviation in constant peril, starve rural America of access to cutting-edge technology, and saddle the travelling public with ever increasing fees.”
NATA officials acknowledge the proposed legislation “contains many provisions that reflect NATA’s suggestions for making the FAA a more efficient organization. While we agree with the chairman that maintaining the status quo risks our nation’s supremacy in aviation, this draft legislation poses even greater risks — to the safe and stable nature of the world’s best air traffic control system and America’s vibrant general aviation community.”
Meanwhile, officials and members of the Alliance for Aviation Across America also are voicing their concerns.
A main one is the “repercussions of ceding unprecedented levels of control to a private board with the authority dominate important decisions about everything from gates, access to airspace and airport funding, to infrastructure investments and new fees and taxes,” the association said in a prepared statement.
Local businesses and officials from rural communities in particular have raised concerns about any proposals to take away Congressional oversight over the air traffic control system, alliance officials said.
In response, Mayor John Manchester of Lewisburg, W.Va., Mayor Joe Gunter of Salinas, Calif., Mayor Stephen Gallihar of Sedalia, Mo., Mayor Rita Albrecht of Bemidji, Minn.,Mayor Steve Williams of Huntington, W.Va., and Mayor Jerry Toomey of Mitchell, S.D., issued this statement, joining in a growing chorus weighing in against the proposal:
“We are opposed to any proposal which would take away Congressional oversight over our air traffic control system. In a privatized system dominated by commercial interests, consumers and smaller communities would come last – these are citizens who have already faced record fees, cuts to air service by 20%, and are getting crammed into smaller and smaller seat spaces. In addition, sectors such as general aviation support jobs, business, agriculture, charitable activity, law enforcement and medical services will be negatively impacted by this proposal. Congressional oversight of the aviation system is necessary to ensure that our air transportation system remains a public benefit and serves communities of all sizes.”
ADS-B is the cash register for user fees. I am extremely disappointed that AOPA did not fight this regulation.
Huh??
Darrel, your comment makes absolutely no sense.
Private ATC? No thanks. What a foolish idea!
To All,
There are numerous reasons why this idea is a bad one and unworkable.
First, How can a impartial panel/board /corporation make good decisions. It would be like a city council meeting, Lots’ of talk and little fundamental action.
Just look at the “Drone registration” fiasco. The American Modelers Association (AMA) which has been around for 70 years and being safe self controlled was essentially thrown out, dismissed of the discussion and decision making process of how to control drones. As most people know, drones can be programed and made not to exceed certain parameters. Why not just limit them to 400 feet and a mile from an airport. Common sense, Right. But no, Another layer of bureaucracy has been added to the federal gov’t. Also, now that the grace period is over there is a fee to register your drone. Again, more bureaucracy in handling all that stuff.
Second, another layer of bureaucracy would be added with no real accountabilities. More monies wasted.
Third, What about the salaries and benefits ? These board members are not going to be compensated on a government GS scale. They will be compensated on the executive scale with all the perks and privileges. And the executive scale is excellent for travel opportunities. Again, Wasted monies and lot’s of it. More gov’t employees will be added to the payroll. I.E. Administrative staff, buildings, offices, etc.
Forth, Who are these board members going to be ? Are they going to people who couldn’t make it in the private sector and want a secure gov’t job.
Or are they also going to be political hacks who have done favors for various parties and now it’s payback time. This is not the American way nor is it right.
Fifth, The medical reform act was thrown in the bill as a bone to GA. Wow, what a gift. Yes medicals would be easier to get, but then who would want to fly for fun.
The list goes on. Everyone please take the time read the General Aviation news article (A few days back) of the Inspector General’s report and the comments posted.
Thank you,
Jeffrey Aryan
@ Jeffrey.
It is NOT Private ATC that is being proposed !!!
Pls Stop promoting that red-herring.
It is instead a separate ANSP entity wholly supervised by real airspace users.
If your concern is having adequate GA influence, just say so, and advocate for it.
Otherwise, it is hopeless at this point to fix FAA. It has been unsuccessful trying to fix FAA for over 4 decades now, …and the 3rd class medical, absurd ADS-B rule, ridiculous airman cert and aircraft cert rules (see back to RTCA TF4), and foolish drone rules, are just tie tip of the iceberg, seriously counterproductive for both safety and efficient air-vehicle operations. This may be our last chance in a generation to save US style GA by finally breaking up FAA and reconstituting ATS services that are vastly less costly and far more efficient, while protecting generalized flexible airspace access for all users (just look at the absurd FAA induced TFR situation now). Let’s not blow it by faulty reasoning and irrelevant arguments that slow or block the Schuster effort to finally fix this pending $40B FAA NextGen disaster!
And, yes, I have flown pole to pole, and every continent. This is NOT Europe, or Asia or South America. So the arguments reference Europe’s GA situation (against splitting out FAA’s ATS service as a separate entity), while completely reorganizing FAA AVS/AFS/and AIR simply don’t apply here.
To ManyDecadesGA,
Sir, I disagree with you and your ideas on this subject. ATC should stay the way it is and not create another so-called separate gov’t bureaucratic organization with no accountability, especially to Congress to run itself for the betterment of the people of the United States. This is just a ploy to create more gov’t waste for people who couldn’t make it in the private sector.
This is just a bad, wrong, and a fools idea that things could be run better. Baloney, Hogwash.
Also sir, you give me the uneasiness and feeling you are somehow intimately involved with this proposal. My feelings stem from the fact that you fail to post your name and the way you address me, as @ Jeffrey. My name is Jeffrey Aryan or you can call me Jeff. I don’t know what @ Jeffrey means.
Also, I’m not getting that warm and fuzzy feeling we can agree on much. Sorry.
I have posted my name and stand by my comments.
Regards,
Jeffrey Aryan
Jeff, to assure you, I’m simply a small aircraft owner, and have no role in this Shuster proposal at all, other than as a serious life long GA advocate and outside observer, …with our family having been directly and continuously involved in GA since the 1930s, …and with both flight operations, as well as running an airport/FBO, …and other aspects too. You must by now recognize that FAA is seriously broken (I’ve cited numerous examples why). FAA cannot be cannot be fixed from either the inside or DOT. We’ve tried unsuccessfully for decades, from both the inside and outside.
So breaking up FAA now and splitting it up as a separate ANSP at this point will be the only serious hope of ATS modernization, assuring that GA will have airspace access, and significant cost reduction, for both all airspace users and the ANSP, in terms of “cost-per-unit separation service”.
The future of GA as we know it is at stake here. Please don’t advocate the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. If it helps, read Bob Poole’s “ATC Reform Newsletter #130”, and it may give you some additional background on why the Schuster approach is the likely last best hope for GA, for our generation.
I see what’s wrong with ManyDecadesGA (AKA, Anonymous) position. Bob Poole’s article is virtually the same article as “Privatization & Government Reform Newsletter #22” (January 2016 edition) by Leonard Gilroy from The Privatization Center of the Reason Foundation.
The Privatization Center of the Reason Foundation conducts and disseminates “research” to federal, state, and local policymakers arguing for privatization of government services in the areas of health, social services, and public safety–as well as infrastructure, such as airports, electric power, highways, transit, and water/wastewater facilities.
The Reason Foundation is a self-described “libertarian” think tank. The Reason Foundation’s projects include The Privatization Center of the Reason Foundation, as well as Reason Magazine. The Reason Foundation is funded by the Koch Family Foundations, and David Koch serves as a Reason trustee. The Reason Foundation gave us ALEC, Stand your Ground laws, Privatized prisons and have spent tons of money to fight action on climate change. Their main goal is to privatize government functions to increase the wealth of their corporate donors.
So, yes, it’s privatization. Calling it non-profit doesn’t make it not privatized. It only means that after the millions spent on management salaries, there will still be a deficit for the taxpayer to replace. Some of our wealthiest corporations are non-profit.
For those who think that privatizing ATC services will do anything good for GA, then ask any pilot in Europe how that’s working for them.
Once you open the door, user fees are a certainty. Not for a while, but the first time there needs to be new money for any ATC expense, the airlines who will control the “impartial” board will stick GA with new fees. Guaranteed. I don’t care if the new law says no GA user fees, but that is this congress and now. The next congress bought by the deep pocket airlines could easily amend the law opening the door for GA user fees.
Come to think of it, has there ever been in the history of the US an example of a government function that was privatized with good results?
Have you actually flown in Europe? If so you would know that Europe’s problem is not lack of government, it is too much government. Even little airports with little traffic often have a control tower and when the tower closes the airport closes – to ALL traffic. Because as we all know, without “help” from the government it is just too dangerous for us to fly.
Handing ATC to a wholly-state-owned subsidiary (European-style) is not privatization and if you give this government business carte-blanche to charge whatever it “needs”, you will obviously lose control of the situation – because that is exactly how government works today. The FAA could charge user-fees today – with or without privatization – and if spending is not brought under control that is exactly what will happen. Just look at your airline ticket next time you buy one – how much of that is for “services” provided by government?
Since you are arguing that privatization never works, you must either feel that today’s inefficient and ever-expanding government is the perfect mix or you must feel that we need even more government – like the TSA.
If so, you’d love Europe.
I must agree with Steve here. Yes, the government is inherently bureaucratic and not always cost-efficient. But, in my opinion, not everything needs to be cost neutral or abide the capitalist ideal.
My experience living in a state that privatized their Department of Motor Vehicles tells me all I need to know about what will happens if ATC goes down the same road.
Mr. Mann, you are seriously in error of your assessment about the wisdom, value, and importance of now splitting out ATS from FAA as a separate NON Privitized ANSP, while reorganizing FAA from the top down, to make it more relevant and reasonable to airspace users, to actually promote safety. Many of FAA’s recent actions and foolish policies [including many for NextGen] are actually INHIBITING safety advances (I could give numerous examples), as well as unnecessarily and massively driving up GA costs (e.g., seriously faulty ADS-B 91.225/.227 rule).
This issue of ATS splitout has NOTHING whatsoever to do with furthering private profit or executive salaries. It is all about saving the airspace system for airspace users assured access (starting with massively inefficient and inappropriate TFRs and R areas and unnecessary GA blockage from Class B, and drone integration), massively needed increases in efficiency and airport capacity and airspace capacity (especially in adverse WX and around GA reliever airports), and substantially reduced ATS costs (fully allocated costs of the present ATS system cannot possibly be sustained for GA without massive non-aviation tax subsidy, which isn’t going to continue).
So please sir, look at the facts beyond your simply casting stereotypes, and help recognize that this may be our last opportunity in GA for a lifetime to save low end GA, and finally start to solve some of the ills that are strangling GA at every level, from sport, to gliders, to low end GA ASMEL ops, for everybody but perhaps the Hi-end very expensive turboprop/jet BizAv, who are now being most vocal about resisting this Schuster led Congressional opportunity to finally substantially introduce much needed reform for both FAA and ATS.
It matters little the source of an argument, if the argument is valid, which Mr. Poole’s arguments (e.g., ATC Reform Newsletter #130) typically are, just as he has often written in GA aviation media like B&CA as well as Pro Pilot and elsewhere [PS. I am in no way connected with any of the organizations or philosophical movements that you cite. I’m simply a GA small aircraft owner and operator who cares, and who has been in this industry, and directly following and supporting this industry for over 6 decades].
“Many of FAA’s recent actions and foolish policies [including many for NextGen] are actually INHIBITING safety advances (I could give numerous examples), as well as unnecessarily and massively driving up GA costs (e.g., seriously faulty ADS-B 91.225/.227 rule).”
How is NextGen inhibiting safety?
Yes, every technological advance in aviation has gotten pushback from the General Aviation users – “Why should I buy a VOR receiver because the FAA is shutting down the NDB at my airport???” But if putting traffic information in the cockpit is inhibiting safety, then I really don’t want to live in your world.
I am not simply casting stereotypes. You make several unsubstantiated claims that there is ” wisdom, value, and importance” of privatizing ATC, yet all you can quote is The Reason Foundation’s position – which is to privatize all government functions.
Name one non-political organization that agrees with your ridiculous conclusion. Just one.
Mr. Mann, NextGen is MASSIVELY inhibiting safety advances, …from applying completely scientifically flawed CRM methods, to seriously faulty and hopelessly obsolete TERPS, to overspecified and unnecessary NIC and NAC and unnecessarily requiring DO260B for ADS, to a 20 year delay in introducing FANS to massively overspecified criteria for RNP (which is key to future global dynamic and flexible airspace operations, even for GA down to sport aviation, gliders, and drones), …the list of NextGens failures or pending failures could fill volumes. Even RTCA TF4 recognized this totally FAA screwed up criteria process situation over a decade ago. NextGen is a $40B disaster about to happen, that will not only NOT WORK appropriately or economically for any airspace users, but it is going to cost GA an unnecessary fortune in nearly useless (throwaway) equipage, if not massively crush GA due to further completely unnecessary and inappropriate airspace access constraints, such as in 2020.
You didn’t even try to answer my question.
I asked, “How is NextGen inhibiting safety?” and you replied with it is behind schedule and over budget, it will cost you money, it doesn’t solve everything.
So, do you want to try again?
How is NextGen inhibiting safety?
Steve, … perhaps you could start first by naming one “non-political organization” anywhere at all… NATA, NBAA, AOPA, and DAL sure don’t qualify as non-political??? O:)
Seriously… just look at the list of former FAA Administrators, and previous heads of FAA’s ATS function, who now have no axe to grind whatsoever, but that nonetheless strongly support splitting up FAA and separating the ATS function, as in the Shuster effort.
This would all perhaps work just fine without splitting up FAA, if there was any serious hope of reform internal to FAA. But after 40+ years of seriously failing in that approach, many of us see no hope whatsoever but to now again do what we did after the Eisenhower administration (Grand Canyon accident), to completely start over from first principles, with a completely rebuilt FAA from scratch, and a separate ATS function, answering much more directly to airspace users, who will ultimately be paying the tab for both equipage, as well as for separation services. We CANNOT afford the present seriously broken ATS system. Worse yet, the NextGen plan is the WRONG plan that will ultimately crush GA, especially low end GA.
The difference from NATA, NBAA, AOPA, (What is DAL?) and Koch Brothers, “The Reason Foundation” is that The Reason Foundation is first a political organization pretending to be a “think tank” and lying about their “impartiality” to promote privatization of government functions.
If you look at the political leanings of the organizations you list, their PACs tend to be overwhelmingly Republican in their voting recommendations.
So, who besides the Koch foundations is supporting privatization of ATC?
Even your response above contradicts your position:
” with a completely rebuilt FAA from scratch, and a separate ATS function, answering much more directly to airspace users, who will ultimately be paying the tab for both equipage, as well as for separation services. ”
Airspace users means the airline corporations, and everyone else will be paying the tab. not at first, but over time, with certainty. The airlines have absolutely zero interest in protecting General Aviation in any form.
The way the FAA is funded today couldn’t be more equitable. The more you fly, the more you pay.
If you let the airlines take over ATC, General Aviation is most certainly over.
The simple truth is that the FAA needs to be largely dismantled because it simply does not work. Could you imagine our automotive transportation sector being “administered” by a “Federal Automotive Administration” in such a way that every year fewer and fewer people could drive their own cars – and btw – the only growth in owner-driven car travel would be in home built cars??! Everybody else would take the bus because that was the only way they could afford to drive – mostly thanks to a completely dysfunctional “Federal Automotive Administration”. THAT is exactly where “federal oversight” has taken us in aviation.
Currently, when I buy unnecessarily specialized, over-priced fuel for my airplane I get to pay for the “services” of an ATC system that is mostly there to keep me out of vast swaths of airspace, which have been reserved for the military and the airlines. Most the time I do not need their “services” – but the airlines and the military do in order to keep me out of “their” airspace – or at least strictly “administered” when I dare venture in there.
Opponents of a privatized ATC are touting keeping “America’s air traffic system as the safest and most effective in the world”. But that is a false argument. As Europe and lots of other countries have clearly shown: More Government involvement in aviation means less aviation for the little guy and that is where we are currently headed. Do you ever hear about traffic conflicts between privately owned Cessna 172s and airliners in China? Do you think that could be because the little guy does not have the right to buy and fly a bug-smasher in China?
I say: Dismantle the FAA and start the process by taking ATC away from it – and do it in a way that enshrines the little guys’ fundamental right to fly and gives the airlines and the military (and the guys in $50-million Gulfstreams) a way to better and more fairly manage AND PAY FOR the airspace they have already managed to grab for their own, pretty-much exclusive use.
After that there will still be a long list of other mismanaged tasks, which can be taken away from the dysfunctional FAA.
Jack P and EAA have done great good for GA. But that said, he is seriously wrong about the position he stated opposing the Shuster Bill to split up FAA and separate out the ATS function into a separate ANSP. All of GA has much more to lose if FAA isn’t massively reorganized ASAP, and ATS set on a pathway to much more modern and vastly less expensive separation services process, assuring better long term shared dynamic airspace access, at vastly lower cost. From the botched 3rd class medical reform to seriously errant ADS-B criteria (Australia and Canada BOTH use vastly more sensible, more functional, and less restrictive and less expensive ADS criteria), to the completely bollixed drone criteria, to fouled up STC and SID and AD criteria, …FAA is a hopeless un-fixable mess. It is the beltway organizations, OEMs, and avionics manufacturers (largely by encouraging overblown faulty self serving criteria) that are largely now selling GA down the river. It is time for GA to get on board and support the Shuster bill, albeit perhaps with assurances of adequate GA represented seats at the table (the new ATS Board). But don’t expect this to happen from the very GA organizations that have been largely selling us out in inadequate or faulty representation for the past two decades (e.g., the GA lobby groups touting ridiculous ADS-R, obsolete WAAS, and airspace wasting LPV, and hopelessly expensive and completely unnecessary NIC and NAC for seriously faulty and over-specified ADS-B via DO-260B criteria). It was both AOPA and EAA that both recently sold us down that river, led by GA OEMS, and greedy avionics vendors, looking for a captive gullible regulatory driven GA sales market. While Jack is perhaps well meaning, and he’s certainly done a lot for GA, now is no time to follow his advice. I wish both Jack and EAA well, and acknowledge their many positive efforts. But it is time for EAA to seriously reconsider their entirely inappropriate position opposing the Shuster Bill. Split up FAA now and reconstitute it from first principles just as we did after the Eisenhower era, split out ATS, and completely redesign ATS from the foundation to actually work for all airspace users. Present NextGen is heading straight toward a dysfunctional ineffective $40B failure that will virtually kill GA as we know it (NextGen already equals PastGen).