NextGen

In 2009, the airlines provided 11.5 million jobs, that’s 396 billion wages, 1.3 trillion to the economy, and a contribution of 5.6% of the nation’s GDP.  The airlines, obviously, have a huge impact on our economy, and they affect millions of people’s lives everyday.  In 2011 (June ends the 12 month period), 363 million people flew in commercial planes to get to destinations.  By 2025, air traffic is expected to increase by 50%.  That’s a lot of people and planes.  How are we going to be able to fit all those planes in the air? 

The solution: NextGen.  The FAA describes NextGen as “a comprehensive and ongoing transformation of our National Airspace System.”  NextGen is going to replace the current radar-based system to a satellite-based system.  Satellites, along with the required equipment for NextGen, allows planes, pilots, and ATC to do incredible things:

• Direct routes
• Real time weather
• Pilots know where they are at all times in relation to ground and other aircraft
• 20% reduction in radio communications
• Precise flight paths
• Efficient use of airspace
• More informed decisions
• Fly shortest distance between two points
• FAA, National Security, and Military will be able to monitor airspace easily
• Airport diagrams displays in cockpit and ATC with moving plane and vehicle locations on ramps, taxiways, and runways
• Better airfield capacity
• Airport design flexibility – parallel runways closer to allow for more runways and more flights
• And more…

All of these things save time, money, and fuel, and reduces CO2 emissions.  In fact, NextGen claims to be a friend to the environment.  NextGen allows continuous descents when coming in on approaches with very little power, reducing noise and fuel consumption.  A study done at MIA airport reveled that planes that have continuous descents saved, on average, 50 gallons of fuel and reduced CO2 emissions by 1,000 pounds.  It is estimated that by 2018, taking into consideration of increased air traffic, NextGen will reduce delays by 21%, reduce CO2 14 times, and save 1.5 billion gallons of fuel. 

This all sounds amazing, futuresque, and wonderful; but who’s going to pay for it?  In a recent article from Information Week Government, the FAA expected costs for NextGen to be close to a total of $40 billion, where now they think that cost is going to be closer to $160 billion.  The FAA has already invested $1.9 billion, but we still have a long way to go.  The cost is broken up into two pieces: (1) infrastructure – things like radar, radios, and landing system equipment, this will be paid for by the FAA and at no direct cost to users; (2) Cockpit Equipment – all the equipment for the plane to receive, transmit, and display information is at the cost of the operator.  Airlines are hesitant to install this new equipment because they will not be getting a near-future payback, it will take a while to be able to pay it off. 

The Air Transportation Association has be pushing for grants to fund this massive technology move, but because of the current economy, it is expected they will not receive any grants.  The company ITT has a solution.  ITT had the idea to start the NextGen Equipage Fund.  ITT, aerospace companies, and other investors are working to provide $1.5 billion in borrowings and equity.  It is estimated that the $1.5 billion will fund 75% of the commercial cockpit installations, including data communication and ADS-B.  ITT will call back loans as the airlines make their profit off their new equipment, all while being a “good corporate citizen.”

So, the airlines have help, but what about GA and their pilots?  For GA to have NextGen they need GPS, a Universal Access Transceiver – making their current transponder a back up, a Multi-Functional Display, and an antenna.  AOPA online reported that, today, more than 80% of GA aircraft have GPS, and 20% have WAAS.  Therefore, the transition is possible with just a few upgrades.  AOPA just asks the NextGen plan to remember the cost to GA and their pilots. 

Secret Security

Many airline passengers complain that the security at the airport is a hassle.  They have to leave even earlier to get to the airport because they know security is going to take “forever.”  Some people think that security is not enough and that people can get through; there needs to be more or new security measures.  So, what is to be done?  Should we decrease the security like the people think they want, increase the security like some people think we need, or change the security to make it flow but still maintain the safety of passengers. 

I think that we should be adding security that does not slow down the check in process for passengers.  If there is a hassle for passengers, security will be viewed as a bad thing.  If the security is always there and does not involve a line, the people will welcome and encourage the security.  One way to do this is with Federal Flight Deck Officers.  It is the new “beefed up” pilot.  Allowed to carry a pistol in the cockpit and receive training to carry and build confidence with guns.  The thought being that they are the last defense for when the No-Fly List, x-ray machines, and body searches fail.  It gives the pilots peace of mind knowing they do not have to only rely on the TSA, they can have control over all situations now. 

More and more pilots want to receive this training to become Federal Flight Deck Officers, but funding is limited and they are forced to wait, continuing to fly unarmed knowing that something could happen. Some would say that there are Federal Air Marshals to protect the plane once the people are on it.  But there are not enough Air Marshals to be on every flight.  Plus, it costs more to tax payers to have an Air Marshal than it is to train a pilot to become a Federal Flight Deck Officer. 

I suspect that there will be increasing number of these Deck Officers.  Pilots want to feel safer and do not have to worry about who is in the back of the plane.  I like that there is increasing safety even after you get through the security gate at the terminal. 

An issue with automation?

I have completed my instrument rating and am currently working on my commercial license.  I fly a Cessna 172 which is installed with a G1000.  That thing does everything.  GPS, autopilot, XM radio, Nexrad weather, etc.  When my instructor turns all of that off to fly by the standbys, it takes me a while to get my bearings; and I always prefer to just leave the automation on.  We learn to fly with the automation and without the automation, but never practice a scenario if it fails.
 
Is there a problem with automation in aviation?  Or is there a problem with pilots’ skills?  Or is the problem when the two are combined?  There has been a lot of talk in the aviation industry about the recent airline accidents with the blame falling on pilots and their lack of skills when it comes to the automation in the plane. 

Accidents are happening when it automation fails.  When pilots fly by automation, they get comfortable and just assume everything is working.  How many times have you heard ATC ask an aircraft their location only to first respond with “Uhhhhh….standby”?  They trust that the plane is where it is supposed to be, even if they don’t know where “it” is.  But what happens when the automation is not doing what it is supposed to be doing?  It catches pilots off guard and it takes a while for them to process the situation and by then it may be too late.  ABC network did a story on Automation Addiction, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/automation-addiction-pilots-forgetting-fly/story?id=14417730.  It discusses the Air France flight 447 where the autopilot kicked off and the stall warning sounded.  On the voice recorder, both the co-pilot and captain did not know what was happening.  The co-pilot took the plane into a climb and all 228 people are dead. 

I think that training for pilots should include scenarios with spontaneous automation failures.  Pilots need to stay on top of the aircraft and be prepared at all time for a failure.  This is such a high risk job; nothing should be over looked or forgotten.