Aviation Policy News: Government shutdown causes air traffic control problems

In this issue:

• Air traffic chaos: Only in America
• DOT Inspector General post-mortem on NextGen
• Airports and “use it or lose it”
• Airlines vs. spaceships: Florida’s looming problem
• Time to reform TSA airport screening
• Don’t move the ATO to DOT
• News Notes
• Quotable Quotes

Air Traffic Chaos: Only in America  

As this article is being written, the federal government shutdown is dragging on, and reports of overstressed controllers taking sick leave are reflected in late arrivals and departures at more and more airports (following the ‘air traffic control zero” event at Hollywood Burbank Airport on Oct. 6, when there were zero controllers in the tower on the evening shift).

The tragic aspect of this fiasco is that it could not have happened in 98 countries that, since 1987, have depoliticized their air traffic control systems by taking them out of the government budget and converting them into user-funded public utilities (analogous to toll roads and electric and water utilities). New Zealand was the first, spinning off its air traffic control (ATC) system as Airways New Zealand, and transferring the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)-compliant weight-distance ATC fees so that instead of being paid to the New Zealand government, they were paid directly to Airways. And since aviation is a growing industry, that revenue stream became bondable, making it possible to long-term finance ATC modernization, of both technology and facilities.

Of the 98 countries that have made this transition thus far, three can be considered to have “privatized” their air traffic control systems: Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom. In 61 cases, the self-supporting air navigation service provider (ANSP) is a government corporation (analogous to our federal Tennessee Valley Authority and various state and local government electric, gas, and water utilities). All of these have bondable revenue streams, enabling long-term financing of new facilities and modernizing their technologies. Six countries in Central America are served by a multi-state ATC utility called COCESNA, and 17 in Africa are served by a multi-state ACESNA. You can find a complete listing of how countries provide for ATC services in Table 5 in the 2025 edition of Reason Foundation’s Annual Aviation Infrastructure Report.

Since these ANSPs are self-funded via ICAO-compliant ATC user fees, they are outside their governments’ budget and hence not affected by their governments’ fiscal problems. Our airlines, passengers, and air traffic controllers would be spared the present miseries if Congress were to depoliticize our Air Traffic Organization (ATO) by separating it from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and enabling it to charge ICAO-compliant user fees and issue revenue bonds based on that revenue stream.

Notice what word I have avoided: ‘the dreaded P word.’ As noted above, only three can be described as to some degree “privatized.” Separating the air traffic control provider from the government budget is not privatization. Nor is allowing it to emulate 98 other countries in charging airlines and business jets the same ICAO weight-distance fees that those aircraft pay nearly everywhere else on the globe.

Support for converting U.S. air traffic control into a public utility has historically had bipartisan support. Vice President Al Gore was impressed by the formation of Airways New Zealand, and doing likewise in this country was a key objective of the Clinton administration’s U.S. Air Services Corporation proposal. When the plan got to a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing, I testified in favor. But neither the airlines nor the air traffic controllers supported it at that time.

But in the aftermath of a 2013 government shutdown, in which controllers (like today) went without pay until the shutdown ended, controllers’ union, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, supported the 2016-2018 air traffic control corporation bills, along with nearly all the major airlines and the editorial support of nearly all major newspapers’ editorial boards (except The New York Times). That effort began with a blue-ribbon task force convened by the Business Roundtable, and was championed in Congress by Rep. Bill Shuster, then-chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The next FAA reauthorization is due to be debated in the 2028 fiscal year, Between the FAA’s serious safety gaps concerning the risks of helicopter routes at Reagan Washington National Airport (highlighted by the National Transportation Safety Board) and the current air traffic debacle, perhaps public opinion would support one of more of the following: (1) separate the ATO from safety regulator FAA, per ICAO policy since 2001, (2) allow the independent ATO to implement ICAO-compliant weight-distance fees, and (3) give it bonding authority, to allow long-term financing of facility consolidation and large-scale technology replacements. Calling that “privatization” would be a lie. It would follow the global trend of air traffic control modernization. This change is long overdue in the United States.

P.S.: Not everyone remembers that President Donald Trump’s 2018 infrastructure plan included a call for air traffic reform, and Trump supported Shuster’s House bill via a White House event at the time. Politically, if Trump were to renew that part of the plan, he might encourage MAGA Republicans to take this idea seriously, and it could also be appealing to some Democrats.

» return to top

DOT Inspector General Post-Mortem on FAA’s NextGen

On Sept. 29, the Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of Inspector General (OIG) released what it calls a “capstone memorandum” on the FAA’s more than 20-year NextGen lifespan. It draws on 50 audit reports OIG produced, beginning in 2005. While there is nothing “new” here, pulling this all together amounts to a devastating critique of the much-touted NextGen program that was supposed to reinvent U.S. air traffic control.

The planned $36 billion effort (by the FAA and U.S. airlines) was intended to transform the system via advanced technology by 2025. Overall, this summary report estimates that by the end of last year, NextGen had achieved only 16% of its intended benefits. It also notes that despite the 2024 FAA reauthorization legislation calling for the FAA to “operationalize all key NextGen programs and terminate the Office of NextGen by the end of 2025,” the FAA will continue to deploy several NextGen systems over the next three years.

Here are a few conclusions set forth in OIG’s post-mortem. The first of these is that “FAA is delivering a less-transformational NextGen than originally envisioned, resulting in reduced benefits.” Early on, the Joint Planning & Development Office estimated $213 billion in benefits by 2025. FAA has on multiple occasions presented (ever-downward) benefits estimates, with the most recent (2024) being somewhere between $36 and $63 billion. That compares with an actual number, by the end of 2024, of just $9.9 billion. OIG also notes that the benefit estimates depend in part on airlines equipping their fleets with new technology, such as DataComm, which is far from complete.

Another key finding is that “FAA is currently implementing a version of NextGen that will be less-transformative than the original vision.” Instead of fundamentally transforming how air traffic is managed, as the National Research Council pointed out in 2015, the FAA had switched to a NextGen outcome based on “replacing and modernizing aging systems.” In most cases, “programs would remain nearly identical to existing capabilities.” The FAA also removed the NextGen Future Facilities program, which was intended to consolidate and modernize ATC facilities.

Another key finding is that “Many key programs and capabilities are over budget and delayed until 2030 or beyond. The report cites many examples, such as the delays and downsizing of the Terminal Flight Data Management program, which is not only late but has been scaled back from the planned 89 airports to only 49 (meaning only those 49 will get electronic flight strips for tower controllers; the others will still be stuck with paper flight strips).

Summing up, the report says, “Overall, FAA has delivered a delayed, over-budget, and less-transformational NextGen than originally planned. Many challenges continue to persist, even as FAA transitions to its new modernization plans in 2025.”

The OIG report also provides a set of lessons learned from the NextGen fiasco. The first is that FAA has a problem developing and implementing realistic long-term plans and assessing risk—and that this is due to a lack of meaningful requirements for projects (a subject that has been discussed in this newsletter—and this issue’s Quotable Quotes). Vulnerabilities in FAA acquisitions include not establishing fair and reasonable pricing, not promoting competitive procurements whenever possible, not mitigating against conflicts of interest among award-selecting officials, and not establishing effective contract management.

Another ongoing problem is sustaining “legacy systems” that were supposed to be replaced by NextGen systems. As the FAA’s independent 2023 National Airspace Safety Review Team report explained, the cost of maintaining obsolete systems (often with no spare parts available) eats up a significant proportion of facility and equipment budgets that were intended to pay for new technology. The report does not point out that if the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) had the kind of revenue bonding authority that airports have, it could finance new technology and implement it across the system within a year or two, rather than having to dole out the new tech in dribs and drabs over 15 or more years.

There is more, but I will stop here, simply to note that the much-hyped “Brand New ATC System” does not address any of these shortcomings, so don’t expect it to be more successful than NextGen.

» return to top

Airports and “Use-It or Lose-It”

A Chicago Tribune story crossed my screen on Oct. 2, “United Airlines Gets Additional Gares at O’Hare, while American Loses a Few: Competition Keeps Fares Lower.” As you may know, Chicago O’Hare (ORD) is a rare case where two major airlines each maintain a hub. Each would prefer to offer more flights than the other, to offer passengers more choices of destinations and/or frequencies. In the old days of long-term lease-and-use agreements, airlines sought to lock in control of as many gates as possible for many decades. Critics rightly referred to it as gate-hogging.

In the last several decades, we’ve seen an evolution in how U.S. airports handle gates. I’m not aware of any U.S. airports that assign gates dynamically, as I’ve experienced at some European airports (where you don’t know your departure gate until about 30 minutes before boarding time). But a growing number of U.S. airports have shifted to more-flexible gate assignments. According to the Tribune article, ORD changed to a “use-it-or-lose-it” provision in its airline use agreement in 2018. Each year, gates are allocated to airlines based on their use the previous year. Under that “use-it-or-lose-it” policy, starting this month, United will gain five more gates while American will lose four.

For a relatively recent example of gate-hogging, I recall an Atlanta trip where I ended my business early and got to Hartsfield (ATL) about three hours before departure time. When I checked the board after getting through TSA, I saw my gate already listed with my Delta flight number. I did not see any earlier flight to my destination, but I decided to spend my time waiting in the DL concourse where my gate was. To my surprise, when I got to the gate, it was empty—and it remained that way for about two hours more while other flights arrived and departed. That seems like gate-hogging to me.

In a landmark study from the National Bureau of Economic Analysis (NBEA) that I wrote about in the April 2024 issue of this newsletter, I learned that in a study of 2,444 airports worldwide, the ones that were being managed under long-term private concessions that included an infrastructure investment fund had more airlines, more airline competition, lower average fares, and higher productivity by several measures than other airports. Clearly, U.S. airports on average could achieve some of these gains by operating them more like businesses (which is what the infrastructure funds bring to the table, in addition to more robust long-term financing).

Another aspect of productivity (or lack of same) is how nearly all airports deal with more flights than their runways can handle. The landing slot system widely used in Europe (and some other countries) generally begins by grandfathering in the airlines and their slots, which represent the status quo at the time the system is implemented. What a way to intervene on the side of “in’s” at the expense of “out’s.” And many slot-controlled airports have a loosely enforced “use-it-or-lose-it” provision; a slot-holder is considered to be fully using its slot if it flies 80% of what full use would be.      

I have long argued that a far more economically productive variable runway pricing system would increase an airport’s productivity and foster competition (see my co-authored 2007 paper, “Congestion Pricing for the New York Airports“). The only airports that have even tiptoed into variable pricing are London’s Heathrow and Gatwick, which have peak and off-peak rates, plus noise charges.

The reformist government in Argentina has recently altered its conventional slot system at Buenos Aires’ Jorge Newbery Airport. The new rules allow airlines to trade slots under the supervision of a regulator and a “silence-positive” provision, which ensures that if the facilitator fails to take action on a slot request within a required period, the change is approved. These are small changes. But if the current libertarian-oriented government wins re-election, I would not be surprised to see more serious reform—perhaps even variable runway pricing.

» return to top

Airlines vs. Space Ships: Florida’s Looming Problem

As a life-long “space cadet,” growing up with science fiction and closely following the Apollo Moon landings, I watch SpaceX Starship launches and am a big fan of how SpaceX’s innovation continues to slash the cost of getting payloads into space. But as a Florida resident and still a frequent flyer, I stand to be personally affected by the coming growth of space launches and recoveries from Florida’s spaceports at the Cape.

Next year alone, SpaceX plans 120 Starship launches from Florida—76 from Air Force Space Launch Complex 37 and another 44 from the Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39-A. Assuming most or all 120 succeed, in addition to 120 launches, there will be up to 240 returns—of both the Starship itself and its Super Heavy booster. In addition, in the near term, the company expects to launch (and mostly recover) 50 or more Falcon 9s (though the company plans to phase down Falcon 9s as Starship matures).

The Air Force and FAA have conducted environmental impact studies of these launch and recovery operations, as well as the gradually increasing volumes of Blue Origin’s New Glenn launches and recoveries. One major impact is on (mostly) north-south air travel between the Northeast/Midwest and Florida. This greatly increased space flight activity will ramp up the operations of the Space Data Integrator at the FAA Command Center in Warrenton, VA.

How many flights will be affected on, say, a Starship launch day? Orlando Sentinel reporter Richard Tribou cited a federal report estimating that as many as 12,000 commercial flights per year could be delayed due to increased launch activity at Cape Canaveral.

Based on launch/recovery plans, plus expected telemetry data, FAA staffers must define and refine the “aircraft hazard areas” for each launch and each recovery. The volume of these will increase dramatically next year. In a series of articles in the Orlando Sentinel, reporter Tribou reported that SpaceX says these aircraft hazard areas “are extremely conservative by nature and are intended to capture a composite of the full range of worst-case outcomes, but not any single real-world operation.” The company anticipates that the “actual, implemented areas will be far smaller in geographical scope and far shorter in duration, validated by the robust flight data we are building.”

Needless to say, safety is the FAA’s number one priority as the federal aviation safety regulator. So it is likely to err on being conservative, rather than taking chances on some kind of air/space disaster that could have been prevented.

I don’t have an answer to this dilemma, but I want to bring up a subject that’s not being mentioned thus far in this debate: paying for the airspace used. Worldwide, airlines and business jets pay ATC user fees for the services they receive. They paid nothing in the early days of aviation, but once a complex, costly ATC system was brought into existence, it made sense for those who benefitted from it (rather than all taxpayers) to pay for its capital and operating costs.

When it comes to in-atmosphere launch/recovery traffic, there are currently no user fees—but there should be. If 400 airline and business jet flights are delayed due to space launch/recovery operations, what is the cost to those airlines and their passengers? This is what economists call an externality, and one way to deal with externalities is to price them. I have no idea what the cost to aircraft operators will be from launch/recovery delays, but it’s time for economists to start figuring this out. Space launch companies would certainly be motivated to invest more in precision launch and recovery operations if the use of this valuable airspace were no longer “free.” And in response to such prices, launch companies might figure out ways to provide the FAA with real-time data on flights, so that the FAA might be able to reduce the size and duration of hazard warning areas.

» return to top
 
It’s Time to Reform TSA Airport Screening
By Marc Scribner

The impact of the October government shutdown on the air traffic controller workforce has received wide attention owing to the travel delays caused by shuttered FAA facilities. If the shutdown continues and federal employees go unpaid, we can expect additional travel chaos from the TSA’s frontline security screeners calling out sick or quitting. As with the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization, airport security screening is too important to be left to the political strife of Congress. Instead, security screening operations should be devolved to individual airports, with the TSA reorganized as a dedicated regulatory agency to oversee this reformed system. To that end, Reason Foundation has produced draft legislation to implement these reforms.

Forbes reported on Oct. 7 that one-fifth of the mid-Atlantic screening workforce had called out sick, according to the regional union representative. As of the second week of the shutdown, TSA checkpoint problems had yet to materialize. However, this may change soon if the government shutdown continues and TSA employees do not receive their full paychecks, as the agency has warned. During the 35-day shutdown in Dec. 2018 and Jan. 2019, airports in Miami and Houston were forced to close terminals because TSA could not staff security checkpoints.

Despite a major pay increase in 2023 that was credited with reducing annual attrition rates from 20% to 11%, TSA screener turnover is still roughly double the average federal employee attrition rate. Their comparatively low wages and monotonous workplaces make TSA screeners more likely to depart for better jobs even when the government is meeting payroll. A single missed paycheck is likely to lead many screeners to call out sick and seek employment elsewhere to address their sudden financial hardships.

This is no way to run airport security screening. Peer countries do not rely on a single national agency to self-regulate and provide screening services that are then funded by the federal legislature. The current TSA dual provider-regulator model presents an inherent conflict of interest, while its monopoly and dependence on general government funding creates a high-cost single point of failure. To mitigate these inherent risks of the status quo TSA airport security model, three reforms are necessary.

First, the provision of airport security screening services should be separated from the TSA, which would be converted into a dedicated security regulator. Screening operations would be devolved to individual airports. This reform is in keeping with global best practices established by the International Civil Aviation Organization. Annex 17 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly known as the Chicago Convention, states that parties to the agreement—which includes the United States as a founding signatory and the treaty’s depositary—should ensure the “independence of those conducting oversight from those applying measures implemented under the national civil aviation security programme.”

Second, airports newly responsible for security screening should be allowed to contract directly with private security providers. Two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 nationalized airport security screening operations previously provided by airlines. The law includes a provision that allows for contract screening—the Screening Partnership Program (SPP)—but this program is fundamentally flawed.

Today, airports seeking SPP screening are given merely an advisory role in a TSA-dominated process that selects, approves, and then funds eligible private screeners. Airports are not party to SPP screening contracts and have no control in the process beyond their initial decision to apply to the TSA. As a result, SPP has been an unattractive option for most airports, with just 20 airports currently enrolled in the program. Instead, airports should be allowed to contract directly with private security providers, who would be selected from an approved vendor list maintained by TSA. Airports should also be allowed to self-provide screening, subject to TSA certification, just as is required of private screening companies.

Third, airports should be authorized to directly collect passenger security fees to pay for screening services. Airports would understandably oppose an unfunded mandate to provide security screening. This dynamic is what led to the creation of the TSA in the first place, with airlines lobbying for a federal takeover of the screening services they had previously been required to provide at their own expense.

To address this legitimate concern, Congress should reform the existing security service fee assessed on airline tickets, commonly called the 9/11 Security Fee. Currently, airlines are required to collect security fees and remit the revenue to the TSA. However, since 2013, Congress has raided one-third of fee revenues for deficit-reduction purposes. Instead, these fees should be directly remitted to individual airports to cover the costs of the screening services provided, much like the passenger facility charge is collected today for airport capital project financing.

Reforming the TSA to a model widely used in affluent European and Asian countries would permanently insulate airport security screening from the risks posed by government shutdowns. It could also help advance improvements to practices and technologies, leading to a better passenger experience. And it could do all of this while saving federal taxpayers money.

Reason Foundation’s draft TSA Reform Act is available here.

» return to top

Don’t Move the Air Traffic Organization to the DOT Headquarters

As noted in last month’s issue, the FAA has announced plans to move a portion of its Washington, D.C. staff from the two aging FAA office buildings to DOT headquarters, often referred to as “Navy Yard.” Because there is not enough office space at the Navy Yard, the FAA administrator needs to decide who moves there and who relocates to an unspecified “elsewhere.”

Politico Pro reported on Oct. 3 that a Sept. 30 document they reviewed calls for moving the Air Traffic Organization staff to Navy Yard’s East building, by around Dec. 10.

This is the worst choice. For several decades, dating back to the Clinton administration’s reinventing government efforts, it has become clear that the ATO is a high-tech service business that does not belong embedded in the national aviation safety regulator. There is ample evidence that FAA safety regulation of the ATO is not as rigorous as its safety regulation of airlines, airports, flight schools, repair stations, etc.

Consequently, the ATO should be functionally and physically separated from the aviation safety regulator, eliminating the current built-in conflict of interest. Given the FAA’s failure to take seriously a host of pilot reports of the safety hazard presented by Helicopter Route 4 crossing under the final approach to DCA runway 33, I’m hoping the NTSB will recommend organizational separation between the ATO and FAA.

The responsible decision would be to move the ATO outside DOT, to a location adjacent to the Command Center in Warrenton, VA. That is already a key ATO facility, and if it does not have the space to house the D.C.-based ATO staff, nearby office space could be leased. The rest of the FAA’s D.C.-based staff would be appropriate to move to the Navy Yard.

One other benefit of moving the ATO out of FAA would be to comply with ICAO policy that, since 2001, has called for organizational separation between a country’s aviation safety regulator and entities such as airports and air traffic control providers. The United States is one of the last major countries that has failed to adhere to this principle.

» return to top

News Notes

Isaacman Again in Line for NASA Administrator
Bloomberg and Politico have reported that President Trump has met with Jared Isaacman to discuss re-nominating him as NASA Administrator. This would be a very positive step, as I explained in the July 2025 issue of this newsletter, based on a two-page interview with Isaacman in the June 30-July 12 issue of Aviation Week. Read one or both to see why this would be such a meaningful change for NASA.

Saudi Arabia’s First Digital Control Tower
On Oct. 1, Saudi Arabia’s General Authority of Civil Aviation approved the country’s first remote digital tower, to be located in Jeddah at King Abdulaziz International Airport, to control traffic at A1Ula International Airport. Saudi Air Navigation Services (SANS) is working with Spanish company Indra to implement the project. If SANS can do this, why can’t the FAA?

Arora Group Submits $33 Billion London Heathrow Plan
Arora’s specially created company, Heathrow West, formally submitted its proposal to the U.K. government on Sept/ 2. The plan would include U.S. company Bechtel, whose global airport track record includes the new second airport for Sydney, Australia, and many others. The Arora proposal competes with Heathrow Airport’s own $66 billion plan (which would build the new runway over the M25 motorway) by proposing a shorter new runway instead. Both plans aim to complete the expansion by 2035.

New NOTAM System Getting Trial Run
Politico Pro reported (Sept. 30) that the FAA has begun a trial period of its new Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) system with “early adopter stakeholders” for testing and validation. The new system has been developed, under FAA contract, by Virginia-based CGI Federal. FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said the replacement system is “resilient, user-friendly, and scalable. The current schedule calls for the new system to replace the antiquated NOTAM system in Feb. 2026.

Islip Shortlists Three Teams for Airport Terminal Project
Long Island’s MacArthur Airport (ISP) is in the market for a new terminal. The three pre-qualified firms submitted their proposals during the first week of October, reports Eugene Gilligan in Infralogic (Oct. 3). The airport owner (Town of Islip) hopes to select the winner by February and execute a pre-development agreement with the winner. ISP is located adjacent to the Ronkonkoma railroad station, which provides service to both Penn Station and Grand Central Station in Manhattan.

Gatwick Second Runway Approved
U.K. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has formally approved London Gatwick Airport (LGW) converting the taxiway that parallels its runway into a second runway. That would allow for 80 million annual passengers compared with 43.2 million in 2024. U.K. Chancellor Rachel Reeves said, “A second runway at Gatwick means thousands more jobs and billions more in investment for the economy.” Green Party leader Zack Polanski opposes this decision, saying that “Aviation expansion is a disaster for the climate crisis.” LGW is 50.01% owned by Vinci Airports, the world’s fifth-largest airport firm, according to the Reason Foundation’s “Annual Aviation Infrastructure Report: 2025.”

American to Remove Gate Bag Sizers
Starting this month, American Airlines plans to start removing the bag sizers at its boarding gates, billing the change as “simplifying the boarding process.” My impression (as a two-million-mile AAdvantage member) is that this change will more likely lead to longer delays in getting the boarding door closed, because more passengers will bring aboard too-large bags that will have to be removed at the last minute.

NASA Plans February Launch of Artemis II Mission
On Sept. 23, NASA announced that it plans to launch its huge SLS rocket for only the second time, carrying four astronauts on a 10-day trip around the Moon. SLS’s Orion capsule had a troubled re-entry on its first (uncrewed) launch (in 2022) and has not been modified. The Artemis 2 orbit will take it 5,000 miles past the Moon before swinging back toward Earth for its return. As noted here last month, each Artemis flight costs $4 billion.

First SpaceX Starship Version 3 Will Launch near Year-End
The new version of Starship will make its debut launch in either December or January, reported Aviation Week Network on Sept. 16. The new version has an improved upper-stage heat shield as well as other improvements. It will also be the first Starship equipped for propellant transfer in space, a key capability for its role in the Artemis program.

Blue Origin Planning Second New Glenn Launch
Jeff Foust reported in SpaceNews that Blue Origin is preparing its second New Glenn rocket for launch this month. Its payload will be a NASA Mars mission. The company will try again to recover the reusable first stage by landing it on a barge. New Glenn is a potential provider of a Moon lander for NASA, as is the SpaceX Starship. The Orlando Sentinel separately reported the opening of Blue Origin’s $3 billion New Glenn assembly plant and launch site on Merritt Island, Florida.

Adani Plans Additional $3.4 Billion to Expand Mumbai Airport
Infralogic reported (Oct. 7) that Adani Group is planning to invest $3.38 billion to expand the capacity of Navi Mumbai International Airport in India, primarily for the new airport’s second terminal, which is planned to open in 2029. The new investment is a combination of equity and debt. The project is a long-term public-private partnership (P3), in which the Maharashtra government holds 26%.

FAA to Require 25-Hour Cockpit Voice Recorders
A new air safety regulation, now in final review by OMB/OIRA, will require all newly manufactured commercial aircraft to be built with 25-hour cockpit voice recorders. The National Transportation Safety Board has long recommended this change, since in a number of accidents and other mishaps, the current two-hour recorders get written over by new material and are then useless in NTSB investigations. Unfortunately, there is no requirement for airlines to retrofit 25-hour recorders in their existing fleets.

Beta Planning a Larger Electric Hybrid
Electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) developer Beta Technologies has unveiled plans for a 19-seat hybrid eVTOL, as a follow-up to its six-seat Alia eVTOL. Like the existing Alia, the new aircraft will have wings. Thanks to its hybrid propulsion system, the new 19-seat aircraft is expected to have a much longer range than electric-only VTOLs. Its existing six-seat Alia is designed to make conventional takeoffs as well as vertical ones. To raise funds to develop the new 19-seat hybrid, Beta has filed with the SEC for an initial public offering of shares. Aviation Daily notes that Alia’s MV250, aimed at military missions, has a range of 250 nm. Aviation Week (August 11-21) notes that Archer, Joby, and Vertical are also developing hybrid-electric aircraft with longer range and higher payloads.

China Leads the Pack in Advanced Air Mobility
SMG Consulting, relied on by Aviation Week for assessing the viability of eVTOL and related aircraft, now ranks Chinese developers EHang and Volocopter in first and second place in its 2025 rankings. In the next four places are U.S. companies Beta, Joby, and Archer, followed by two more Chinese and two more U.S. developers (Robinson and Wisk).

Archer and Joby Bid for Bankrupt Lilium’s Assets
According to Aviation Daily’s Jens Flottau, the two U.S. eVTOL developers have joined Advanced Air Mobility Group to bid for the intellectual property of now-defunct German eVTOL startup Lilium. A decision by Lilium’s creditor committee is expected by the end of October. 

» return to top

Quotable Quotes

“The bottom line is that there will be no cancellation of SLS, Orion, or Lunar Gateway in the near future. Congress wants all three and is willing to throw money at them for years to come to keep them alive. Though [SpaceX’s] Starship might delay things a bit, as Bridenstein claimed. The reason China will get its lunar base built first will be because of SLS, Orion, and Gateway, not Starship. SLS and Orion are inefficient, cumbersome, and too expensive, and Gateway puts our assets not on the Moon but in space. You can’t build a manned lunar base with a rocket and capsule that launches at best once a year, carrying four people. Nor can you do it building a lunar space station in an orbit that makes landing on the moon more expensive and difficult.”
—Robert Zimmerman, “Yesterday’s Senate Hearing on Artemis: It’s All a Game,” Behind the Black, Sept. 4, 2025

“The FAA has 14 business units, heavily siloed, intensely fortified. I do think the [DCA] incident was a wake-up call for the agency that we have to think differently, act differently, and move quicker with modernization . . . . We’re innovating at about the same pace as aircraft manufacturers are redesigning. But the world is changing. Demand for the [National Air Space] is growing exponentially, and our innovators are innovating at about the pace of an iPad, not the pace of the new mid-market aircraft. The FAA also has to increase its agility, which is going to create some challenges for us.”
—FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford, in Sean Broderick, “FAA’s Bedford: NAS Modernization Not Just About Technology,” Aviation Daily, Sept. 10, 2025

“Over the years, FAA’s acquisition and airways facilities organizations have experienced a significant cultural shift, moving away from a mission-driven, engineering-centric approach. Once supported by a robust systems engineering capability via the Martin Marietta Systems Engineering and Integration (SEI) contract, the organization now faces significant challenges due to diminished engineering leadership and oversight structures that lack technical depth and NAS experience. Issac Asimov once said, “Science can fascinate, but if you want something built, call an engineer.” This shift has led to delays, cost overruns, and a loss of mission focus, putting efficiency ahead of safety and security. To restore effectiveness, FAA must appoint a deeply and broadly NAS-experienced Chief Systems Engineer, who will lead the re-establishment of a world-class systems engineering organization informed by current and continuous operations research. . . . Reinvesting in experienced systems engineering and engineering program acquisition management will be essential to modernizing the NAS’s aging systems and will create a cultural shift that will once again attract the very best leaders back to FAA.”
—Mitch Narins, Strategic Synergies LLC, retired from FAA after more than 26 years as program manager and eventually Chief Systems Engineer for Navigation

» return to top

The post Aviation Policy News: Government shutdown causes air traffic control problems appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/air-traffic-chaosonly-in-america/