Quote of the Week

The Federal Aviation Administration softened the reporting language for minor incidents of airplanes flying too closely to each other a few weeks before a government report accused air traffic managers in North Texas of covering up similar cases.

The decision to label some "loss of separation" errors as "proximity events" has drawn criticism from observers who think the FAA is merely trying to make its numbers look better, The Dallas Morning News reported in Saturday editions.

"The FAA's definition of safety is when nobody gets killed," said aviation industry consultant Michael Boyd, head of The Boyd Group of Evergreen, Colo.

The new record-keeping policy began June 25, a few weeks before the U.S. Special Counsel alleged that managers of the air traffic control system at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport were hiding errors and blaming them on pilots. The D/FW system also controls traffic at Dallas Love Field.

The FAA said the new system isn't meant to hide anything. Instead, it takes the subjectivity out of incident evaluations without changing any minimum standards, said Tony Ferrate, director of the Air Traffic Safety Oversight Service, a division of the FAA.

Basic separation standards require aircraft to stay apart by five miles horizontally or 1,000 feet vertically, with the horizontal separation decreasing to three miles closer to an airport.

Under the new formula, the "error" designation will be removed from the most minor incidents. According to a briefing made to air traffic control personnel, there were 967 "loss of separation" errors in 2004; 1,181 in 2005 and 1,103 in 2006. The number is projected to drop to about 790 for 2007, when the minor incidents become "proximity events."

Doug Church, spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, said the agency's new way to report minor infractions paints a rosy, but incorrect, picture.

"Standards have not changed. What has changed is the way (the FAA is) counting them," he said. "They believe their motives are pure. We believe their motives are not as pure. Changing numbers around to try and show the system is safe doesn't mean the system is safe."

FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said the agency will still count each time an airplane gets too close to another. The new way to calculate errors will enable the FAA to focus more on "really serious incidents," she said.

Monday, July 16, 2007 http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/23967/

Aviation Safety Financing Up in the Air As Senate Debates Bill

By Garesia La'Shay Randle - The Federal Aviation Administration is breaking a sweat as time is running out for the Senate to reauthorize an aviation bill that would increase funds to modernize what critics call "antiquated aviation systems."

Washington, D.C. - Scripps Howard Foundation Wire - infoZine - FAA officials discussed their immediate need for more money for the Airport Airways Trust Fund at a hearing Thursday before the Senate Committee on Finance. The AATF provides funding for flight control systems at U.S. airports and airway systems.

The FAA predicts that the number of passenger will increase from 740 million to 1 billion by 2015. The number of flights will rise by one-third to 61,000. Business aviation is expected to grow twice as fast as the commercial airlines over the next 14 years.

Both committee members and FAA officials agreed that the current 50-year-old aviation system is ill equipped to handle the increased demand for air travel.

"Just like it was the right time to replace the old television years ago, now is the right time to replace the old radar technology with real time GPS technology," said ranking committee member, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.

But as the committee considers the FAA's request, the question remains of how much modernizing the system will cost.

Most important, committee members want to know who should pay for it.

Excise taxes, including ticket taxes and fuel taxes, now bring in $10.6 billion to pay for more than 80 percent of AAFT costs. But if Congress doesn't act before Sept. 30, taxes will be frozen at the current level.

This poses considerable problems for the FAA. It needs more money for the satellite-based system Next Generation Air Transportation System, which would improve air traffic safety and efficiency.

Committee members and other critics fear that commercial passengers will end up paying most of the excise taxes, while general aviation - private planes and corporate jets - will be given as much priority at airports and in the air without paying as much as commercial passengers.

FAA Administrator Marion Blakey said transforming the current system into NextGen, an estimated $4.6 billion project over the next five years and $22 billion by 2025, require that users pay according to the costs they generate, which is lacking in the current system.

"The primary goal of the administration is to tie the cost of our service to our revenue," Blakey said.

General aviation drives about 16 percent of the costs of the air traffic control system, but pays only 3 percent of the taxes, Blakey said.

The committee's reauthorization of the bill would also impose a $25 surcharge per flight on all owners or operators of aircraft.

But critics say this could hurt small and rural airports that serve most general aviation flights but have small profit margins.

"A $25 surcharge could push them over the brink," said Gerald Dillingham, director of civil aviation issues for the Government Accountability Office.

General aviation advocates have said they do no want to pay the surcharge but are willing to pay an increase in fuel taxes.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said it is not fair for commercial passengers to share their space with the growing demand of business flights and pay more for the necessary modernization at the same time.

"Who is going to pay for it? It is always the commercial side," Lott said. "This time we are going to have a fair bill or no bill."

Mark Hansen, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California-Berkeley, said fees should not necessarily be directed toward general aviation, but priority should be given to parties willing to pay for change.

"If they are unwilling, then priority of access must be given to the airline customers who paid for the existing capacity," Hansen said in a written statement.

Dillingham said GAO has some concerns about the accuracy of the FAA's cost estimates so far into the future.

Blakey said she is confident in the FAA's ability to use funds adequately and on schedule, but she said it is too early to determine if the estimated fees will be adequate.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chair, said the committee will look for a resolution that may not fully satisfy every party but is likely to be the best compromise.

"The committee will try to find a fair and equitable solution," he said.