control as we know it. This system will totally incorporate GPS navigation for much more accurate positioning, much closer separation, and more efficient, standardized approach and departure procedures for the nation’s airports. In an effort to better manage air traffic flows in and out of airports, allowing more flights in and out while maintaining the safest environment possible comes with a hefty price tag.
Older ground based radar systems will be replaced by the more modern satellite systems we are becoming more and more familiar with. These GPS positions for all aircraft will be available to ATC and the pilots in the aircraft themselves. They will display a real time continuous image of all traffic in the sky. However, since this is obviously not currently available and never has been in the past, major changes will need to take place to implement this technology in every aircraft, and in a timely manner.
Since every airport and aircraft will be required to have these capabilities, new systems and components will need to be installed in every single aircraft in operation. The funding for these changes are a very hot topic and obviously the government will be paying to implement the system, but the required equipment that companies, airlines, and general aviation will need to purchase could be an issue.
Looking at the big picture, it will cost more money to operate a more advanced system; therefore prices are going to go up across the board. Whether it be an added tax or a user fee, somehow this $20 billion project needs to be paid for. As far as paying for the equipment, I believe that the government should pay to install all required ground equipment at airports or terminal areas to get the system up and running. As far as the equipment that will be added to the aircraft, I believe it should be treated as another required for flight system and integrated with the overall price of building the aircraft. Therefore, the price of the aircraft will go up. These changes in general aviation on the other hand, I feel should also be funded by the government for all aircraft currently in operation. If it is a requirement to have this equipment, then some type of credit should be given to GA aircraft owners to install the equipment. After this, any repairs or component replacements should be that of the aircraft owner. Obviously these systems will start coming on all newly manufactured aircraft in the near future. Companies will have to pay for that themselves and add the value of these systems to the sales price of the aircraft.
As far as the systems and the operations that will be utilizing them, a higher percentage of the bill should be the responsibility of the more demanding operations. Obviously, 121 carriers will have a higher demand and utilization of this system then the guy flying off the grass strip in the Upper Peninsula . Once again, if the cost of operating increases, prices will rise. On top of this, there is risk in charging companies or private aircraft owners to install certain equipment, which is not yet proven. I’m not incredibly familiar with the system, but it seems there would have to be some type of testing/analysis period before total implementation. The following article provides significant detail to the previously stated financial issues; the FAA budget, the coming ATC problems that will require this new system, as well as the technology constraints and political constraints involved.
I agree with you that General aviation pilots who own an aircraft for personal use should be granted a one time credit from the FAA to cover some of the cost to equip their aircraft.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting article link, and I agree that the cost of these systems should be eventually rolled into the cost of the aircraft. The big question is how do we handle to cost for the aircraft that are already operating.
ReplyDeleteI think you have some very good ideas. My only concern is that in our current economic situation this is not possible. I believe the implementation of the system will see many delays mainly relating to the cost.
ReplyDelete