FAA And Airspace Modernization

GAO WORRIES ABOUT THE FUTURE OF VFR
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/666-full.html#192560)
We all know that satellite-based systems will largely replace
curve-of-the-earth-hampered ground stations and we all know that it
will require some extra equipment on board. But is VFR going to be
somehow limited or discouraged in the process? The GAO seems to think
so. The Government Accountability Office recently released
(http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06653t.pdf) its latest in the series of
updates on just how the FAA is doing with its modernization plans
(better, it turns out). That document contains vaguely disturbing
references to just how VFR fits into the Next Generation Air Traffic
System (NGATS). The report contains three references (p. 2, 5 and 29)
calling it a "critical policy issue" to determine "the extent to which
NGATS will accommodate visual flights versus instrument-only
flights."[
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/666-full.html#192560

OTHER THAN THAT, FAA SCORES DECENT MARKS WITH GAO
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/666-full.html#192561)
The GAO report says the FAA, which was reorganized in 2004 to include
the Air Traffic Organization, is doing better at buying and
implementing the technology that will be required to accommodate the
three-fold increase in air traffic that is anticipated by 2025 (that
FAA-estimated growth is questioned by some in the industry). While a
couple of years ago it was a given that FAA procurement projects would
go sideways, the GAO says that for the second year in a row the agency
has managed to bring new projects on line in time and within 10
percent of budget 80 percent of the time. But, then, the process is
far from over.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/666-full.html#192561

Larry Dighera wrote:
> FAA And Airspace Modernization
>
> GAO WORRIES ABOUT THE FUTURE OF VFR
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/666-full.html#192560)
> We all know that satellite-based systems will largely replace
> curve-of-the-earth-hampered ground stations and we all know that it
> will require some extra equipment on board. But is VFR going to be
> somehow limited or discouraged in the process? The GAO seems to think
> so. The Government Accountability Office recently released
> (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06653t.pdf) its latest in the series of
> updates on just how the FAA is doing with its modernization plans
> (better, it turns out). That document contains vaguely disturbing
> references to just how VFR fits into the Next Generation Air Traffic
> System (NGATS). The report contains three references (p. 2, 5 and 29)
> calling it a "critical policy issue" to determine "the extent to which
> NGATS will accommodate visual flights versus instrument-only
> flights."[
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/666-full.html#192560
>
> OTHER THAN THAT, FAA SCORES DECENT MARKS WITH GAO
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/666-full.html#192561)
> The GAO report says the FAA, which was reorganized in 2004 to include
> the Air Traffic Organization, is doing better at buying and
> implementing the technology that will be required to accommodate the
> three-fold increase in air traffic that is anticipated by 2025 (that
> FAA-estimated growth is questioned by some in the industry). While a
> couple of years ago it was a given that FAA procurement projects would
> go sideways, the GAO says that for the second year in a row the agency
> has managed to bring new projects on line in time and within 10
> percent of budget 80 percent of the time. But, then, the process is
> far from over.
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/666-full.html#192561

I suspect that what will happen in the future is that VFR will be
limited to Class G airspace, and in all other airspace you will need to
be under positive control using the new system... This would still
provide a degree of freedom for VFR type operations in uncongested
airspace, but in congested airspace you will need to comply with the
new equipment and control rules...

Most uncongested airspace is class E.

-Robert

wrote:
> I suspect that what will happen in the future is that VFR will be
> limited to Class G airspace, and in all other airspace you will need to
> be under positive control using the new system... This would still
> provide a degree of freedom for VFR type operations in uncongested
> airspace, but in congested airspace you will need to comply with the
> new equipment and control rules...

On 30 Jun 2006 15:02:46 -0700, wrote in
. com>::
>
>I suspect that what will happen in the future is that VFR will be
>limited to Class G airspace, and in all other airspace you will need to
>be under positive control using the new system...

That would virtually eliminate VFR operations above 700'/1,200'
throughout most of the CONUS. I sincerely hope nothing this draconian
occurs.

>This would still
>provide a degree of freedom for VFR type operations in uncongested
>airspace, but in congested airspace you will need to comply with the
>new equipment and control rules...

Any pilot who fails to avail themselves of Radar Traffic Advisory
Service within 100 miles of Los Angeles has a death wish, IMNSHO. That
said, I'd still prefer to have the option, rather than have ATC
routing me in inconvenient ways that don't really address my
preferences.

The real question here, is will there need to be retraining for those
VFR pilots who lack an instrument rating?

And what of operations below radar coverage?

As the years go by, I find the new technology and scientific
discoveries awesome, but I'm very happy I grew up in simpler times
when there was more freedom.

wrote:
>I suspect that what will happen in the future is that VFR will be
>limited to Class G airspace, and in all other airspace you will need to
>be under positive control using the new system... This would still
>provide a degree of freedom for VFR type operations in uncongested
>airspace, but in congested airspace you will need to comply with the
>new equipment and control rules...
>
If this requires lots of expensive equipment then it won't fly. I am
doing quite well without TCAS, SBAS, ADS-B, TIS, FIS and whatever
other acronym you want to make me pay for.

Ron Lee

In article >, (Ron Lee)
wrote:

> If this requires lots of expensive equipment then it won't fly. I am
> doing quite well without TCAS, SBAS, ADS-B, TIS, FIS and whatever
> other acronym you want to make me pay for.

add to that CDTI, UAT, and GPS.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Bob Noel > wrote:

>In article >, (Ron Lee)
>wrote:
>
>> If this requires lots of expensive equipment then it won't fly. I am
>> doing quite well without TCAS, SBAS, ADS-B, TIS, FIS and whatever
>> other acronym you want to make me pay for.
>
>add to that CDTI, UAT, and GPS.
>
>--
>Bob Noel

I have GPS. But the other two sound like big bucks.

Ron Lee

In article >,
(Ron Lee) wrote:
> >> If this requires lots of expensive equipment then it won't fly. I am
> >> doing quite well without TCAS, SBAS, ADS-B, TIS, FIS and whatever
> >> other acronym you want to make me pay for.
> >
> >add to that CDTI, UAT, and GPS.
> >
> >--
> >Bob Noel
>
> I have GPS. But the other two sound like big bucks.
>
> Ron Lee


GPS is big bucks if it goes in the panel.

I think that we're faced with the reality that the NAS increasingly
exists for the airlines and other commercial operators, and no longer
does it exist for the rest of us. However, I would be surprised if
there were any swift moves to eliminate or severely restrict VFR flight.
I would not be surprised if there were slow, measured moves to severely
restrict VFR flight, particularly flight which utilizes ATC services.

It sounds like the reality for most of us who fly both VFR and IFR is
that we'll be forced into ADS-B at some point in the future, though I
suspect it's the somewhat distant future at this point.



JKG