I searched and read the 2 posts under " The Trump Presidency" about privatizing ATC, If this should have been asked in there than forgive me and I will delete and ask in there.

To be frank I'm not educated enough to know the pros and cons of privatizing ATC and what that would involve. I don't know if I want a for profit CEO of a company making decisions on something like this. How would it work? one company controlling the whole US, by region, by state? Am I missing something when it's said privatizing ATC. Would it be just the guys in the tower or station and still run by the goverment?

Can you all educate me on this topic. Opinions are fine to. Thanks Hray

First of all, it would be run by a non-profit company. And ATC would still be regulated by the FAA.

That's about the extent of what I can offer right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
First of all, it would be run by a non-profit company.

Like the Post Office, Amtrak, and other low performers. I too am ignorant on this subject, but have my doubts about it being successful.

quote:

Originally posted by hray:
I searched and read the 2 posts under " The Trump Presidency" about privatizing ATC, If this should have been asked in there than forgive me and I will delete and ask in there.

To be frank I'm not educated enough to know the pros and cons of privatizing ATC and what that would involve. I don't know if I want a for profit CEO of a company making decisions on something like this. How would it work? one company controlling the whole US, by region, by state? Am I missing something when it's said privatizing ATC. Would it be just the guys in the tower or station and still run by the goverment?

Can you all educate me on this topic. Opinions are fine to. Thanks Hray

I'm not sure what the current proposal is, but I believe that this is not a totally new concept.

VFR navigation charts show airports in magenta if they do not have control towers, blue if they do have control towers. I remember questions on the written exam in the old days, re the designation "NFCT" for some blue airports. The meaning is "Non Federal Control Tower." I'm not positive whether that designation still exists -- we have active and retired Air Traffic Controllers on this forum, maybe one of them can answer that question.

I do remember that the rules for pilots were a bit different, depending whether you were dealing with a "standard" or a "NFCT" airport. The standard rule was that for an airport with a "standard" control tower, you needed to have communication radio capable of receiving and transmitting on appropriate frequencies; for an NFCT airport, the requirement was for receiving only, there was no requirement for transmitting equipment. I'm probably showing my age here.

The NFCT airports were not all that common. I remember one in Florida, the airport was operated by an aviation manufacturer (Pratt & Whitney?). Reaching back, I think maybe the Sanford-Orlando airport was NFCT, maybe 30 years ago or thereabouts. I think there was one in NJ too. I started flying in NJ in 1964, so that memory is just a little fuzzy.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, we already have a history, maybe ten or twenty years or so, I don't remember the exact date. Flight Service Stations (FSS). "Service" is (was) their middle name. They provide(d) the services needed by pilots prior to launch. You could get a detailed weather briefing, check on NOTAMs (NOtice To AirMen), file a flight plan, etc.

When I first started to fly, there were FSS facilities all over the place. In sort of historical sequence, I remember them being "open door," you could just walk in. Then, as security concerns increased, the door was locked, but there was an intercom and you would be buzzed in. Face-to-face preflight briefings, flight plans filed, etc. I remember using the FSS facilities at Teterboro NJ, Raleigh NC, Orlando FL, many other places. Many of the individual FSS facilities were closed down, one by one, and centralized regional facilities took their place, mainly accessed by toll-free telephone, (800) WX BRIEF.

The next step was to stop providing this service with Federal employees, and contract to private vendors. I might be wrong on this point: I seem to recall that there were two vendors, Lockheed-Martin and I can't remember the other one. Maybe there was only one, Lockheed-Martin (they still have a contract to supply this service).

There were many, many, teething issues in the beginning, but things seem to be running much more smoothly now. The only ongoing problem that I am aware of, is occasional flight plans that are filed and accepted by the system, but seem to vaporize between the time that they are filed and the time that the pilot requests pre-launch clearance. To be fair though, this problem existed before the FSS facilities were privatized; the Feds were guilty of the same thing. It has happened to me many, many, times: "What do you mean you don't have a flight plan for me? I filed it just a few hours ago, it was accepted, and now you don't have it?"

It is highly likely that if privatized, the new vendor will hire many (most?) of the current civil service ATC folks, so transition should be pretty smooth.

FAA towers cost more and are no more safe than contract towers (shocker).

https://generalaviationnews.co...rs-a-277-difference/

quote:

Originally posted by stiab:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
First of all, it would be run by a non-profit company.

Like the Post Office, Amtrak, and other low performers. I too am ignorant on this subject, but have my doubts about it being successful.

This would be my concern. Granted I'm not a pilot, but the Federal government doesn't have a good track record for running these not for profit agencies. This appears, to me, to be a way of taking a large cut out of the Federal budget on the premises of making wholesale upgrades to the system. The money has to come from somewhere. It is porported to be safer, more efficient, cheaper etc. how you upgrade something without absorbing the cost somewhere is a mystery to me.

Why not for a profit?
Otherwise why privatize at all?
Seems a profit incentive might spur competition and improve things.

Different players(airline/general aviation) will have differing opinions on what may be best for 'modernization'. The big $$ is more so with the airlines. Nothing wrong with them carrying their weight, just that we have one of the best & most open general aviation system in the world. I'd rather not see that screwed up. Yes there is always room to improve what you have.

I also realize G.A. pilot numbers are few, low clout. Right now there are some fees scattered about, then aviation fuel taxes. Would a fee scheme like the Canadian model be the end?, could live with it. I also think it would take a bit of enlargement of the swamp to monitor & bill the users, opposed to fuel tax collection.

The private control towers are just a tiny item, little consequence as far as I can tell.

Overall our aviation system is very good, airline & G.A., I'd like to keep it that way. You can modernize all you want, there will still be delays with heavy storms or a blizzard wreaking havoc.

As far as general aviation is concerned, AOPA & EAA and a few others will try to advocate support. Of course many think one has to be rich to own a plane, they can pay.

It may be alarmist, but I foresee a couple of significant negative outcomes.

1) Airlines will be charged more for their landing fees and enroute ATC services. The cost of a ticket will most likely rise as those fees get passed on to the customer. One study of what happened when NavCanada went private showed this exact thing though I can't find that link at the moment. Too early.

2) General aviation could take a big hit as private pilots get assessed both new landing fees at airports with a tower and enroute usage fees. This is a Bad Thing for two reasons. It will discourage pilots from using ATC services which can do nothing but decrease the level of overall safety. More troubling is the effect on the supply of new pilots. The USA has long had a huge pool of new pilots coming up. That took a huge hit in the last decade and a half due to the absurdly low pay at the regional airlines. Making flight training and flying even more expensive could be devastating to the the whole pipeline of fledgling pilots, instructors and flight schools that bring a lot of money into the economy. Many, many foreign pilots come here to gain experience and user fees have the potential of drying up that well of revenue for a whole sector of aviation.

Heck, I look at how expensive flying is today compared to when I was coming up. I can't imagine laying another layer on top of that.

NSFW Language

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Why not for a profit?
Otherwise why privatize at all?
Seems a profit incentive might spur competition and improve things.

There are many reasons why not For Profit. Think of what would happen if the USPS was for profit. The cost of everything would skyrocket. The not for profit model puts the money back into the facilities to help pay for improvements to the overall system. Nav Canada is the model we are striving for. They build new technology and sell it.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
It has happened to me many, many, times: "What do you mean you don't have a flight plan for me? I filed it just a few hours ago, it was accepted, and now you don't have it?"

Just an FYI...non-FAR Part 121 flight plans usually don't stay in the system longer than 2 hours before they drop out. If you filed "a few hours ago" (as you stated), I'd say the system dropped your flight plan since you didn't depart in the 2-hour window from the time you filed the plan. We've had to call up our dispatch and have them re-file our flight plan if we've been delayed a very long time on the ground, usually going to EWR when it's been in a ground stop or ATC delay program.

I hate to say it, but I would see ATC as being something where cooperation is vastly more important than competition.

Not everything needs to be private. I see ATC as something like a utility. Having multiple organizations in the same space is inefficient, confusing, and likely to cause problems. It's necessary function, and if profit driven, likely cause corner cutting in ways that may cause injury or death.

In point of fact, the entire ATC system is outdated, and in need of a huge revamp. Would a private organization (non or for profit) be in a position and/or willing to fund that? I think now. Are there good examples where there is a successful national level private ATC system?

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Why not for a profit?
Otherwise why privatize at all?
Seems a profit incentive might spur competition and improve things.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:

In point of fact, the entire ATC system is outdated, and in need of a huge revamp. Would a private organization (non or for profit) be in a position and/or willing to fund that? I think now. Are there good examples where there is a successful national level private ATC system?

Nav Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
I hate to say it, but I would see ATC as being something where cooperation is vastly more important than competition.

Not everything needs to be private. I see ATC as something like a utility. Having multiple organizations in the same space is inefficient, confusing, and likely to cause problems. It's necessary function, and if profit driven, likely cause corner cutting in ways that may cause injury or death.

I agree on this.

quote:

Just an FYI...non-FAR Part 121 flight plans usually don't stay in the system longer than 2 hours before they drop out. If you filed "a few hours ago" (as you stated), I'd say the system dropped your flight plan since you didn't depart in the 2-hour window from the time you filed the plan. We've had to call up our dispatch and have them re-file our flight plan if we've been delayed a very long time on the ground, usually going to EWR when it's been in a ground stop or ATC delay program.

Flight plans are held for two hours AFTER the proposal time.

quote:

Originally posted by erj_pilot:

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
It has happened to me many, many, times: "What do you mean you don't have a flight plan for me? I filed it just a few hours ago, it was accepted, and now you don't have it?"

Just an FYI...non-FAR Part 121 flight plans usually don't stay in the system longer than 2 hours before they drop out. If you filed "a few hours ago" (as you stated), I'd say the system dropped your flight plan since you didn't depart in the 2-hour window from the time you filed the plan.

Well, sort of, as in "Yes, no, and maybe."

The flight plan, as filed, includes an ETD (Estimated Time of Departure). I can file an IFR flight plan up to 24 hours prior to the ETD. If departing from a towered field, Clearance Delivery (or Ground Control, if there is no separate Clearance Delivery frequency), should have the clearance available for a window that spans a 2:30 block, from thirty minutes prior to ETD, until two hours after ETD.

Many, many, many, times, I have filed a flight plan from home, driven to the airport, pre-flighted the airplane, and within maybe an hour of initially filing, I am in the airplane and calling the pre-taxi clearance frequency, requesting "IFR to Key West (or wherever)." Clearance Delivery has responded, "We have nothing on file for you. Who did you file with?" Now, I might have filed with FSS at 7:00 am, for an 8:00 am departure, I'm sitting on the ramp at 8:00 am, I have the ATIS, I'm ready to copy, and they got nuffin for me. This scenario, or similar, has happened to me too many times to count. It has happened to me at Orando Executive KORL, at Caldwell / Essex County NJ KCDW, at Raleigh-Durham, at many locations, so it does not appear to be tied to a specific ATC facility. It happened when the Feds ran FSS, and it continues to happen on Lockheed-Martin's watch.

Particularly irksome is filing from the Out Islands in the Bahamas. Pay the fee, file, depart VFR (no control tower), climb to altitude high enough to raise Miami Center, call for IFR inbound, and hear "We got nuffin on file for you." This one really grinds my gears, as I do not want to look out the side window and see a pair of F-16s "escorting" an unidentified aircraft penetrating the ADIZ without a clearance.

quote:

Originally posted by lakeray:
Flight plans are held for two hours AFTER the proposal time.

Ah. Good to know. Thanks for the clarification and a jog of my (inept) memory!!

Don't know a thing about it other than NATCA has way too much money. They run commercials on the radio all the time and sponsor a bunch of stuff around here. I'm guessing if they got rid of that they could pay controllers more.

We all know about the TSA, but in what way is the air traffic control system "broken?"