Flight Plans Would Be Filed Weeks In Advance
It was a meeting of aviation minds
in Washington last week, where industry and GA lobbyists sought to
influence the future direction of flight in American skies. They
went to Washington at the invitation of FAA in an unprecedented
meeting to address the growing airspace congestion problems along
major routes and hub airports. AOPA sent its representative to the
three-day FAA meeting to discuss the future of FAA's new Air
Traffic Organization (ATO — responsible for flight service
stations, control towers, TRACONs, and enroute air traffic
control), hoping to speak up for the low-and-slow among us.
There was an apparent struggle over some of the provisions of
the new ATO plan. AOPA contends private pilots might have been left
standing on the ramp. But, the advocacy group says, by the end of
meeting, GA's access to the system was ensured. But that wasn't the
tone of the discussion at the beginning. The ATO's new leader, Russ
Chew, (a former American Airlines executive) called the meeting in
anticipation of the upcoming summer convective weather that
annually affects an already constrained system.
The meeting was to discuss
short-term improvements to air traffic control procedures and
equipment — and develop strategies for the future. It was
important enough to GA that AOPA sent three senior-level staffers,
including President Phil Boyer. FAA Administrator Marion Blakey
opened the conference saying, "We've gathered all of you that we
see as our customers. And if we can do it right, we can deliver new
areas of efficiency and capacity."
But the "customers" dominating the discussion were the airlines,
who started with ideas like reducing GA access to some airspace and
airports, creating "HOV lanes" in the sky, and giving ATC
preference based on the number of passengers in the aircraft.
As these ideas were being tossed
out, Boyer told the group, "In 1958 the first steps were taken to
establish what we now know as air traffic control and the
congressional establishment of the National Airspace System (NAS).
Are we now trying to change that government mandate and make it the
AAS — the airline airspace system?"
"What I am hearing could be likened to the bus industry asking
to ban cars from the interstate!"
Boyer, AOPA Senior Vice President of Government and Technical
Affairs Andy Cebula, and VP of Regulatory Affairs Melissa Bailey
defended the role of general aviation in the national
transportation system. AOPA pointed out that GA reaches the "other"
90 percent of airports and communities that the airlines don't
serve. AOPA's arguments were supported by the National Business
Aviation Association (NBAA) representing companies and flight
departments with business aircraft.
"There are capacity issues in airspace of the large hub airports
and some sectors of the enroute environment," said Boyer. "But GA
isn't the problem, and restricting GA won't increase capacity."
The meeting participants ultimately agreed with that
viewpoint.
And what do the results of the
meeting mean for the average AOPA member/pilot? For pilots flying
below 18,000 feet, nothing will change significantly. Pilots will
be asked to file "intended" IFR flight plans (which can be amended)
as much as weeks in advance to allow FAA to better predict traffic.
But this won't happen until FAA changes the computer system to
accept advance flight plans and an expanded list of "slant codes,"
which will state the communications / navigation / surveillance
equipment onboard the aircraft.
In the future, GA pilots might be required to fly RNAV routes
(using an IFR-certified GPS receiver) to access some capacity
constrained hub airports during busy times. Preferential treatment
would be given to those with equipage.
But the airlines (and to a certain extent, turbine-powered
aircraft flying at the flight levels) will see a change soon. A new
"System Access Plan" will be developed that would allow FAA's
command center, rather than a negotiated process between the
airlines, to reroute high-altitude traffic whenever departure
delays at a hub airport exceed 90 minutes. Up until now, FAA only
exercised its authority in bad weather conditions, but now they
will perform reroutes and other actions when there is high volume
and system constraints in enroute or terminal airspace
segments.
In addition, flight-level GA users located at non-hub airports
adjacent to a large constrained air carrier airport might find
ground delays for IFR even though the departure weather appears not
be a factor. That's because ATC will "balancing" the system to
account for the filed route being impacted by capacity restraints
somewhere down the line.
"This was a good exchange of views," said Boyer. "We understand
the airlines' problems better, and the airlines have a much better
appreciation of GA's needs and capabilities. AOPA also demonstrated
that we're not part of the problem, but we are here to be part of
the solution.