FAA - Curiouser and curiouser

[DeepFriar]

When I boil all the privatization arguments down I think general aviation would support privatization if it can continue paying taxes at the pump. That and an entry in the enabling legislation that would not allow user fees. I know you guys are subject to both the fuel tax AND landing fees but at least you can pass (most, some, all?) of that along to the passengers. The thousands of recreational pilots can not. You mention Canada. My understanding (I have no data on this but I can probably dig it up) is that genav activity has been adversely affected in every country or area (EU for instance) where privatization has been implemented. Landing fees, user fees (ATC, IFR, etc.) plus lower priority overall have resulted in less freedom to fly, more expensive to fly, more bureaucracy than what we already deal with. The Aussie or Euro board members may be better able to speak to this.

Genav traffic has already been mostly segregated from primary airports and does not appear to put much load on ATC by comparison (again, somebody else may have data) so the need for modernization can not be placed at the genav door. And, if modernization could be improved by privatization then what form will that take beyond NextGen, RNP, enhanced datalinks, et al? That's a serious, and not a wise guy, question. Genav's fears stem from the fact that, if it is in any way possible, the airlines will, once totally in the driver seat and genav without some political clout, begin transferring as much cost to genav as it can get away with. It's a natural, Darwinian fact of life.

Somehow we need to find a balance. Can you or anyone speak to the exact changes that modernization via privatization would be implemented different from what is now in-plan?

 

[Astro14]

I'm not familiar enough with GA to speak to that part of your question, but I know that GA is dying under the burdens of excessive cost and fuel prices. Only the really wealthy, or really dedicated, can afford an airplane. It's sad, but adding user fees and regulation would only kill it more quickly.

The big issue, for me, is the lack of efficiency. FANS was built into airplanes 25 years ago and includes CPDLC with clearances that can be loaded directly into the FMC. Boeing built it and the airlines bought it because the FAA promised it would be implemented soon. 25 years later...Even airplanes due to be retired (747-400) have this capability, and only now is the FAA dabbling in DLC clearance.... and much of the capability of FANS and CPDLC remains dormant in the US while it's in use in Europe, the Atlantic, and the Pacific.

We could use RNAV to increase departure/arrival rates, but every airport that has them, like DEN, or EWR, fails to use the capability and adjusts speed/alt/heading. They aren't being used to manage flow, they're just a set of points from which to give good old fashioned vectors. Like getting a car with cruise control and then saying, "yeah, we don't want to use that at all..."

I don't think privatization will help with costs, but it will give users, big users, like major airlines, considerable influence to drive sorely needed modernization and capacity increases.

Time will tell. I'm not optimistic...

 

[DeepFriar]

Most of us fall into the really dedicated pot as you would imagine. And many of us wish that our children/grandchildren will also have an opportunity for flight in the future. Yes, I know rich guys in aviation and there is always corporate aviation to poke a sharp, envious stick at. But much of the commerce in this country is supported by people and things flying directly where they are to go without the hub and spoke and getting there and back in a timely manner unmolested by Homeland Security, misnomer that it is. Fuel prices are not as onerous as they once were, as we have seen over the past year+, and is probably still below inflation adjusted levels if we looked hard enough at it. Fuel taxes are high but bearable and, if we don't go to the wrong airports, user fees are not an issue. No, as the old saying goes, "I drive a 20 year old car so I can fly a 30 year old airplane". That's dedication. As you pointed out earlier everything from annuals to parts to avionics to liability insurance is burdening GA so this "privatization/modernization", if it increases our costs, is just another nail in the coffin. I don't know who said it but, "if there is to be a war, let it begin here". We have no choice but to push back. The usually reliable Congressional Budget Office has, in the past week or so, revised the cost of privatization to a more realistic $100B rough order of magnitude from a daydreaming $20B. At that rate I'm not sure if even the carriers will continue to support it. But as I said earlier, I am deadly sure they will try to shift those costs to everybody they can. And, if they're in control, they will.

Strangely, our airspace system is the envy of the world. When I tell foreigners how much aviation happens every day in this country they can scarcely believe it. We do have a cancer though and it is the Northeast. The base root problem there, this is only my opinion, is that there are not enough runways and never will be in that corner of the country. This often backs up the whole system as you know. We hope that we can continue to stuff five pounds worth of aviation into a two pound bag by adding technology. There's the rub. GATM, FANS, PBN, et al were foreseen as ways to enhance the flow as you point out. FANS's primary result though has been achieved and that was enhancing the Atlantic track system. Without FANS that would not be working at all. The problems on our end are multi-fold but include ensuring safety of flight, technology is a moving target, costs to stakeholders, personnel issues (government and airlines) etc. etc. I have one special ping for you airline guys and that is the crocodile tears you cry over the implementation of the hardware. You have pushed back and pushed back on that expense and then cry, both sides of mouth fully engaged, that it hasn't been implemented effectively or fast enough. I feel your pain about contract CPDLC but that is another moving target especially with cyber virus and intrusion worries that should be more top of mind than they are IMO.

GA has gone along on most of this. RVSM and now ADSB have been/are being implemented in order, primarily, to enhance airline operations and, it is said, reduce ATC costs. This has not been cheap by any means. And now GA, after that...more. The advent of WAAS SBAS GPS (darn alphabets) has provided the structure necessary for Performance Based Nav with RNP approaches with accurate RTF (radius to fix) circling approaches included. But each airport has to be be qualified, each aircraft has to be qualified, each crew has to be AR qualified to ensure safety of flight. How is that going to change if we privatize the system? And not to forget, now that we can execute with such precision in specifically approach airspace that timing issues become critical so that aircraft don't arrive at the same fixes, bunched up in our new found efficiency (no more "big sky" theory safety). And given all that now comes news this week that airports have been equipped to determine if GPS is being jammed locally. GPS. Jammed. What are they going to do now that they know it? If it works. Use harsh language? I know I have whined in the past about what a bad guy with a five watt jammer can do but think about that. This whole construct hangs on GPS reliance........ If that doesn't scare you I don't know what will. I personally will take the DME, VOR, and ILS (not really but you see my concern).

And finally, if I spin this thing off to another private or quasi-governmental (say like TVA) have I not built another too big to fail organization that I have no choice but to feed when it falters? What have I gained in that? You are too nice a guy, and too smart, to say that the FAA has been inept in implementing modernization. And I can agree with that but the challenges in this have been immense with many moving parts including technology, traffic growth, politics, budgets, you name it. Someone is going to have to go a long way to convince me though that a Lockheed Martin, BAE, Raytheon, Boeing, IBM, GE or whomever would do a better job for a reasonable cost. They sure as heck don't do it in weapons development. They say familiarity breeds contempt. Well, I am very familiar with all these players and, if not contempt, then wary watchfulness is called for.

Maybe the TVA model would work best but I haven't really considered that until now. Thoughts anyone?

 

[fdcg27]

You make some very good points.
The Northeast has a concrete shortage that cannot be relieved by any technical improvements.
Is there any reason to believe that moving control of the airspace from the FAA to some private entity would somehow bring some renaissance in efficiency, safety and modernity?
I find this proposition very hard to swallow.
The available technology doesn't change with the advent of a privatized ATC system.

 

[Kuato]

DeepFriar, action has been taken:

SAFETY ALERT: INCORRECT AIRPORT SURFACE APPROACHES AND LANDINGS
Earlier today, the FAA published a Safety Alert for Operators, SAFO 17010, regarding approaches and landings on the incorrect airport surface (e.g., wrong runway or taxiway). The SAFO was prompted by a recent incident at San Francisco International Airport, where an aircraft on approach mistakenly lined up on a parallel taxiway occupied by four taxiing airliners. The SAFO discusses best practices to help prevent incorrect airport surface approaches and landings, including stabilized approach; use of available electronic and visual navaids, charts, and other resources; CRM; and being prepared to go around if necessary. Flight crews are advised to be vigilant while conducting approaches, to follow company guidance, and to use approved charts and other aids to avoid approaches and landings on the incorrect airport surface.



You can read it here:

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation...7/SAFO17010.pdf

 

[DeepFriar]

Yes, I saw that earlier on Flying Magazine's site. I will attach the text here. Sure enough though the CVR was not recovered in "the confusion" (see text) and was overwritten. The crew was apparently questioned so we will hear more in time. I don't want to seem harsh but quite aside from whether or not the FAA should have reviewed the CVR, Air Canada should have sequestered the CVR in their own interest and in the interest of full disclosure but they, for whatever reason, did not wish to. They were not legally required to but it would have gone a long way to gaining some trust in this situation. With a reported 60 such incidents in the past year the need for runway advisory systems in the aircraft has become obvious.


Flying magazine:

About midnight local time on July 7, an Air Canada A320 on a visual approach nearly landed on taxiway “Charlie” that runs parallel to Runway 28R. Air Canada Flight 759 descended as low as 59 feet above the taxiway before the flying pilot executed a go-around, returning a few minutes later for a safe landing on Runway 28R. At the time of the incident, four other aircraft were sitting on the taxiway facing the approaching Airbus.
The parallel Runway 28L was closed at the time of the incident with its lights turned off and a flashing yellow “X” in place near the approach end. ATIS information “Quebec” included an advisory at the time that Runway 28 Left was closed and that its approach lighting system was out of service. Lights for taxiway Charlie were turned on to a default setting that included green centerline lights along its length and blue edge lights.
During the post-incident interviews, both Air Canada pilots said they believed the lighted runway on their left was Runway 28L and that they were lined up for Runway 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway Charlie, but that something did not look right to them. It is unclear whether the pilots were flying totally by outside visual reference or were alternating the arrival with glances at the in-cockpit ILS information they would normally have set up.
Adding to the confusion, federal investigators reported the Airbus dropped off the tower’s radar screen about 12 seconds prior to landing making it difficult for controllers to confirm precisely where the Airbus was headed. Listening to a recording of ATC communications during the incident makes it clear that a pilot on the taxiway yelling, "Where's this guy going? He's on the taxiway," is what prompted the Air Canada crew to initiate the go-around.

An FAA spokesperson said aircraft will no longer conduct visual approaches at night to SFO when one of the parallel runways is closed. The agency will also now require two controllers to remain on watch out the tower cab windows during busy late-night hours. Although on July 7 two controllers were inside the tower cab, one was talking on the phone to another ATC facility in the seconds before Air Canada’s arrival.
An unusual situation hindered the gathering of post-incident information on the incident according to a number of sources. No one apparently asked for removal of the cockpit voice recorder once the Airbus was safely parked at the gate in SFO, with confusion reported about who was responsible for that effort. It wasn’t until the day following the incident that the omission was noticed. By then, the CVR had already recorded over the section from the 28 Right incident.

An earlier FAA memo reported that near landings on the wrong runway, or on a taxiway, normally average about 24 per year. The memo said that number increased to more than 60 in 2016. * Author Note: This story includes an update that more clearly explains the time sequence during the go-around.*
Want more news like this?

 

[DeepFriar]

As luck would have it, the September issue of Twin and Turbine magazine showed up in my inbox today. It's a free online magazine for operators of such aircraft. There is an article by an airline pilot in this one discussing the same things we have been beating to death. I feel it's a fair look from the GA side from someone who is on the other side. The PDEffy, flippy page article is located at the below address. The reader should load automatically.

http://twinandturbine.com/issue/Sept17/mobile/index.html#p=42

Let's critique the article. Agree - Diagree - Better Ideas - Whatever.

I have two questions: Do AC A320's have HUDs either with or without SVS/EVS? Could the crew have been dealing with a "too much information" problem due to HUD input?