- Brand New Air Traffic Control System?
- Is air travel less safe in Canada?
- THUD bill would prevent needed ATC reform
- FAA controller shortage getting worse
- Revitalizing Dulles Airport
- Commercial Moon launchers?
- News Notes
Brand New Air Traffic Control System?
The so-called Brand New Air Traffic Control System (BNATCS) is officially underway, with a brand-new system integrator tasked with awarding what will amount to scores of contracts for hardware, software, and facilities. The integrator is a firm named Peraton. If your reaction to that is, ‘Who?’ Join the club.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy acknowledges that Peraton has no previous Federal Aviation Administration or air traffic control experience. It was chosen over Parsons Corp., which has extensive FAA contract experience. Peraton has done work for military and intelligence agencies, the U.S. Special Operations Command, and the National Park Service. But nothing in aviation. It is owned by Veritas Capital, a private equity firm. It has no shareholders, but its advisory board includes many former military and intelligence officials. Parsons’ political action committee donated a quarter-million dollars to politicians last year, of both parties, per www.opensecrets.org.
The FAA, as of this writing, has not disclosed how or how much Peraton will be paid, though it has said that the contract includes both rewards for good performance and penalties for shortcomings. I am told there is no evidence of any FAA contractor having been penalized for poor performance.
To some extent, it’s understandable that Department of Transportation (DOT) officials want someone other than FAA procurement staff to be in charge of numerous contracts to replace obsolete technology and potentially to manage two large projects to consolidate facilities (one TRACON project and one Air Route Traffic Control Center consolidation). As I have reported in recent years, the FAA no longer has systems engineers able to define requirements for new systems or project managers who can keep contractors from translating vague “requirements” into costly projects with all kinds of bells and whistles that cost several times what a basic, functional system would.
The FAA has long had the authority to purchase and use existing off-the-shelf technology that has been proven at other Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs). But the FAA’s internal processes undermine using that flexibility, due to the FAA adding numerous MILSPEC provisions and archaic FAA orders that any supplier must adhere to, and there is no sign of that changing.
One of Peraton’s first procurements (actually awarded by FAA contracting officers) is for replacement radars. One is with RTX’s Collins Aerospace for $438 million under the FAA’s Radar System Replacement program. Another was awarded to Indra for a $342 million contract for next-generation surveillance radars.
Both contracts are for the installation of commercially available radars at 612 sites by June 2028. RTX Collins is a long-time FAA contractor, while Indra has previously supplied the FAA with air-ground voice radios, distance-measuring equipment (DME), and surface awareness initiative (SAI) technology, but not radars. Radar systems are perhaps the single most complex equipment that the FAA procures, combining mechanical and electronic systems that must operate 24/7, 365 days per year. Most existing FAA radars are more than 30 years old and worn out.
A former FAA engineer emailed me about the FAA/Peraton briefing on the first radar system replacement contract. He wrote that there were “60 FAA participants on the telephone and in-person meeting, including current FAA contractors, union members, radar suppliers and their subcontractors, and a few people from Peraton who seemed to understand near-zero about the FAA’s radar infrastructure or even radar operations. Couple that with the lack of a requirements document for the plan that would be contractually enforceable. This amounts to throwing money at Peraton and hiring people who are even less capable than the government. But de facto, at this point, FAA people seem to still be running the procurements.”
A former FAA radar expert tells me that it appears the FAA does not plan to fix or replace the aged equipment outside the 40-year-old radar buildings with worn-out HVAC and telecommunications. A full radar replacement would include antenna reflectors, pedestals, gearboxes, rotary joints, and wave guides.
This does not strike me as a promising start to the Brand New Air Traffic Control System.
Is Air Travel Less Safe in Canada than in the United States?
Over the past year or so, I’ve noticed an increasing number of articles bad-mouthing Nav Canada, the non-profit, user-supported air navigation service provider that took over the provision of air traffic management from the Canadian government in 1996. One repeated complaint is that, like the United States, Canada currently has a shortage of air traffic controllers. Making an air traffic provider self-supporting does provide a reliable revenue stream, but it can’t change the basic nature of controller jobs—high-stress, sometimes awful shift schedules, etc. This is a global problem.
Far more disturbing are allegations that aviation safety is worse in Canada than in the United States. I’ve seen this asserted many times over the past few years, generally by private pilots who cite misleading sources. Let’s look into this in detail. A claim that I’ve seen several times is that ‘per the most recent ICAO safety audit, Canadian air traffic control ranks below average.’
The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) does produce documents called Universal Safety Oversight Audit Program (USOAP) audits. These are assessments of the quality of aviation safety oversight by each country’s civil aviation authority (i.e., the air safety regulator). That means the performance of Transport Canada’s safety regulations, the FAA’s safety regulations, etc. It is not a measurement of the performance of a country’s air traffic control (ATC) provider.
Several aviation experts I asked about these allegations also pointed me to a 2024 report by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. Figure 4 in the report shows that accidents per 100,000 aircraft movements in Canada decreased from 3.7 in 2013 to 2.8 in 2023, a 25% reduction.
In terms of ensuring that air traffic control is properly regulated for safety—i.e., at arm’s length from the regulator—ICAO has long recommended separation between a country’s aviation safety regulator and the country’s airport and air traffic control provider(s). At least 100 countries follow this policy by having air navigation service providers (ANSPs) that are organizationally separate from the aviation safety regulator.
Canada has followed this rule since Nav Canada was launched. The United States would have done likewise if the Clinton administration’s U.S. Air Traffic Services Corporation (USATS) plan (a self-funded ANSP) had been implemented. Another missed chance was the pair of congressional bills put forward by then-House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Shuster in 2017 and 2018. The bills got further than USATS, but never made it to the House floor, despite both having been approved by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Another key difference is the robust funding provided by the user-fee revenue stream of the self-funded ANSPs that serve 95 countries. In many cases, the revenues are strong enough to be bondable, which enables entities, including Nav Canada, Airservices Australia, and NATS in the United Kingdom, to use long-term finance for projects such as large-scale facility consolidation and replacing paper flight strips with electronic flight strips.
Nav Canada differs from most of the air traffic control utilities now serving 95 countries; it is a nonprofit corporation with a stakeholder board, whereas most of the 95 are self-funded government corporations. A key advantage for all 95 cases is that they are not dependent on politicians for their budgets. This may be the most important difference of all. Among other things, it insulates the ANSP’s budget from the vicissitudes of legislative bodies. Had such a system been in place in the United States, our Air Traffic Organization would have been unaffected by the 43-day federal government shutdown in 2025.
THUD Bill Would Prevent Needed ATC Reform
Politico reported (Jan. 21) that the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) Appropriations Act contains a poison pill for air traffic control reform. If passed and signed by President Donald Trump, the bill would block funds from being used to “plan, design, or implement” the privatization of air traffic control and even the separation of the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) from the FAA itself.
While nobody is advocating “privatization” of the ATC system (as opposed to converting it to a self-funded ANSP like those serving 95 other countries), the ban on separating the ATO from the FAA is also foolish.
Since 2001, it has been ICAO policy that air traffic control should be organizationally separate from the national aviation safety regulator. Self-regulation is also a foolish policy, as we can learn from the FAA doing nothing in response to hundreds of pilot reports about the hazard of helicopter flights regularly taking place beneath the approach to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport’s (DCA) runway 15/33. The National Transportation Safety Board has criticized the FAA for not doing anything about this situation, and I’m hoping their final report on that deadly collision will recommend organizational separation of the ATO from the FAA.
And as I have pointed out recently, there is now a window of opportunity to implement such a change. Due to the transportation department’s policy of moving FAA out of its two current office buildings and into DOT’s own building (nicknamed Navy Yard), it would be easy to move ATO’s D.C.-based staff to a separate location, either elsewhere in Washington, D.C., or perhaps adjacent to the FAA command center in Warrenton, VA.
FAA Air Traffic Controller Shortage Getting Worse
Last month, FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said that during the 43-day federal government shutdown, the FAA lost between 4,000 and 5,000 controller trainees. Even though the FAA Academy remained open, many trainees dropped out. “Even though we kept the school open, I think the thought of not being paid was enough to frighten them away,” Bedford told Politico.
Also, last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a new report on controller staffing: “FAA Should Establish Goals and Better Assess Its Hiring.” (GAO-26-107320) It points out that despite the agency having increased hiring of trainees, “Nevertheless, at the end of fiscal year 2025, FAA employed 13,164 controllers, about 6 percent fewer than in 2015,” while total flights using the air traffic control system increased by about 10% over that same time period.
While the GAO report did not explicitly state that the FAA’s staffing model is broken, it certainly provided the information to support such a conclusion. Right on the up-front summary page of GAO-26-107320 is a graphic showing the attrition rates for hiring trainees with no prior ATC experience (the large majority of those hired). Here are the numbers for fiscal years 2017-2022:
| Recruiting | 106,500 applicants |
| Hired for training | 4,000 who passed aptitude test, medical and security requirements |
| Entered training | 2,300 who graduated Academy and began on-the-job training |
Not included in that graphic is the number who washed out of on-the-job training; actually controlling air traffic is far more stressful than any training, and some people cannot handle that level of stress.
The FAA needs two things to remedy this chronic problem.
First, they need a realistic staffing model that accounts for attrition at each stage of the process, using regularly updated washout data at every stage of the process.
Second, it needs to ask Congress for enough funding to recruit and train the numbers actually needed to match the resulting workforce to controller staffing needs.
I’ve been told by people who have studied air traffic controller recruitment and training that the FAA has never asked for what it really needs for controller recruitment and training, taking into account all the washouts along the way from recruitment to fully certified. What appears to happen is that if the FAA makes that part of its budget request, DOT says no, because they believe that the Office of Management & Budget will veto this larger amount.
This is what happens when an ANSP is dependent on appropriations by a legislative body, rather than being self-supporting from its own ATC user fees. The 95 countries whose ANSPs are self-funded answer to their aviation customers and to arm’s-length aviation safety regulators, not to bureaucracies and politicians.
Revitalizing Dulles International Airport
When I lived in Los Angeles and had to fly nonstop to Washington, D.C., those trips always meant using Dulles Airport (IAD). With its horrible standing-room-only “mobile lounges” to get from remote terminals to the main terminal, limited shops and food sources, and waits for infrequent bus service to either a Metro station or all the way into the District, it was a miserable experience every time. Now that I live in Florida, I’m usually spared that experience, except for rare occasions when the best way to get from Florida to a northern location with limited airline service (e.g., Ithaca, NY, home of Cornell University), I have no choice but to connect via Dulles.
But there is now hope for a large-scale makeover of Dulles. Last month, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy released a request for information (RFI) for “revitalizing Dulles airport into the international gateway our nation’s capital deserves.” The RFI refers to completely new terminals and concourses and suggests public-private partnerships (P3s) as a way to proceed. It also dismisses the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority’s plans for Dulles, pointing out only modest terminal improvements, and planning to retain the “mobile lounges” for the next 15 to 20 years!
Long-term airport public-private partnership leases are common in Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Asia-Pacific region. They are hardly used at all in the United States, with San Juan, Puerto Rico, being a highly successful exception. Most U.S. airport owners resist long-term airport P3 leases due to their fear of losing control. That fear misunderstands that a long-term P3 is a partnership, with the current owner as the public partner and the P3 consortium as the private partner. They likely under-estimate how much their airport may be worth to airport investors, in cases where the airport could use better management—as opposed to a multi-billion-dollar make-over as proposed by DOT.
Also, as I pointed out in a 2025 policy paper sponsored by America Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, there are two legal obstacles that make whole-airport P3 leases more difficult in the USA than in the rest of the world. The first is the federal requirement that outstanding airport tax-exempt bonds must be paid off or defeased if there is a significant change of control. The second is that, in contrast to surface transportation infrastructure, where tax-exempt private activity bonds (PABs) are available for long-term P3 projects, there is no comparable PAB availability for airport P3s.
There is promising news on the first of these constraints. As discussed in an article in the December issue of Public Works Financing, DOT’s Transportation Advisory Board has recommended that DOT implement an infrastructure “asset recycling” program comparable to the successful one in Australia over the last decade. As part of its proposal, the Advisory Board proposed “to remove the requirement to defease tax-exempt muni bonds on assets that are leased in an asset recycling deal.” Perhaps this could be done via an executive order?
Making that change would make it more feasible for DOT to undertake a long-term P3 lease of IAD. In this case, it would not be “asset recycling” because the aim of the project would be for the private-sector partner to invest billions of debt and equity to make over and expand this mediocre airport.
IAD would be well-suited to this kind of large-scale makeover. It has a huge amount of land, which few other U.S. airports (except DEN) have. Whether there would be enough air traffic to warrant such expansion remains to be seen, but here is some food for thought. A major study of airport P3s worldwide, sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), found that airport P3s that included an infrastructure investment fund performed much better than those carried out by a private-sector airport company. Among the notable benefits are:
- More airlines, serving a larger number of destinations;
- Lower average air fares, due to increased competition, including from low-cost-carriers (LCCs);
- Increased airport productivity; and,
- Greater passenger satisfaction, as measured by ACI’s annual Airport Service Quality survey.
Everyone interested in long-term airport P3s should read this important empirical study.
Politico’s Pro Space newsletter for Dec. 19 included a lead article on a proposal from the Commercial Space Federation (CSF) calling for commercial launchers to be included in U.S. Moon exploration missions. Since the proposal is not on the CSF website, I’m relying on the Politico article for these few details.
CSF is seeking to get its idea added to the current House NASA reauthorization bill. The new provision, if added to the bill, “would give NASA the ability to move away from the Space Launch System.” (NASA’s $4 billion per launch monument to cost-plus contracts and ancient technology that’s not re-usable). CSF’s proposal “would allow the agency to use commercial alternatives such as SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin’s New Glenn. Long-term, there’s consensus in the space industry that NASA needs cheaper, re-usable commercial rockets to achieve a sustainable presence on the Moon . . . but there’s no clear agreement on when exactly that shift should happen.”
A more-detailed case for terminating SLS and shifting to commercial space was researched and written by aerospace engineer Rand Simberg and published last July.
Politico obtained a comment from CSF’s president, Dave Cavossa, saying, “We see this language as an ‘and’ not an ‘or.’ Congress has already ensured continuity on the program of record through Artemis V with the One Big Beautiful Bill. [New NASA Administrator] Isaacman committed to following that law, so there shouldn’t be concern that this effort threatens SLS.”
Politico adds that “Even if the committee includes their version of the NASA reauthorization bill, it will need to be reconciled with the Senate’s version of the bill.”
Government Admits Army and FAA Failures in DCA Collision
In court documents filed by the Department of Justice, the government admits failures by both the pilots of the Army Black Hawk helicopter and a controller in the Reagan National control tower, CNN reported on Dec. 17. The filing at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. says “The United States admits that it owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, which it breached.” A total of 67 people were killed in the collision between the Army helicopter and AA Flight 5342 at Reagan National Airport on Jan. 29, 2025.
First Digital Control Tower Certified in Spain
On Dec. 10, 2025, Searidge Technologies announced the certification of the first remote/digital tower in Spain, located at Vigo Airport. Initial operations will take place during low-traffic periods, with a conventional tower controller on standby. The digital tower is located in a building adjacent to the airport, at ground level. The airport is operated by AENA, the world’s second-largest investor-owned airport company.
Electra Seeks FAA Certification for EL9 Ultra-Short Aircraft
Electra.aero Inc. on Dec. 10 submitted an application to the FAA for Part 23 type certification of its EL9 ultra-short takeoff and landing aircraft. The hybrid-electric EL9 can take off and land in as little as 150 feet, thanks to its ultra-lift blown wing design. Its capacity is nine passengers. The company envisions a new air travel mode, which it calls Direct Aviation—point-to-point mobility that can bypass large hub airports.
Some U.S. Controllers Are Moving to Australia
A Dec. 20 Wall Street Journal article explained where some overstressed FAA controllers are going: to Airservices Australia. Compared with low staffing levels and aging equipment at FAA facilities, Airservices’ facilities are fully staffed and well-equipped with state-of-the-art equipment, such as electronic flight strips. Moreover, its high-altitude centers were consolidated 25 years ago from six to two brand new ones, compared with the FAA’s aging and far too many high-altitude centers. The former FAA controllers’ new work schedules are nothing like the 60-hour week and “rattler” FAA schedules. And the Airservices work schedules guarantee some off-duty weekends each year. Needless to say, Airservices is not part of the Australian government’s budget. It is a self-supporting ATC utility, of which there are around 95 worldwide.
SpaceX Plans IPO This Year
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger reported on Dec. 10 that SpaceX is planning an initial public offering of shares this year and is hoping to reach a valuation of $1.5 trillion. Among the reasons cited for this move is the company’s ambitious plans to develop and launch data centers in Earth orbit, evidently to be solar-powered. Musk is increasingly interested in artificial intelligence (AI), which will require huge numbers of data centers. Prior to the development of reusable launch systems, the cost of putting data centers in orbit would likely have been prohibitive. But especially when the SpaceX Starship is operational, putting large amounts of mass in Earth orbit will be increasingly affordable.
FAA Headquarters Move Will Take Three Years
Politico reported (Dec. 16) that the relocation of the FAA’s D.C.-based staff to the U.S. DOT headquarters will take three years to accomplish. That extended period will provide time for debating the separation of the Air Traffic Organization staff from the FAA’s safety regulation and airport-grants staff. Since 2001, ICAO policy has called for organizational separation of aviation safety regulation from airport and ATC operations. Most of the civilized world over the past 25 years has followed this sensible policy. It has long been advocated by noted aviation safety experts such as the late Clinton Oster, co-author of the 2007 book Managing the Skies. Oster and co-author John Strong wrote that “Self-regulation of air traffic control creates long-recognized potential trade-off between safety and capacity.” And they added, that “Of the major countries of the world, only the United States continues to have the organization operating the air traffic control system also regulate it.”
$4 Billion Modernization Planned for Damascus Airport
ENR reported that Syria’s General Authority of Civil Aviation has signed a $4 billion contract with a Qatar-led consortium to expand and modernize the Damascus International Airport. The deal is structured as a long-term build-own-operate P3 concession, under which existing terminals will be upgraded and expanded for a long-term goal of 32 million annual passengers. Several Turkish construction firms are part of the consortium. The article reports that work on Terminal 2 and a five-star airport hotel is already underway, aiming for completion by mid-2026.
PNT Expert Wins New Defense Department Position
Mark J. Berkowitz has been appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy. He is known as an expert on GPS vulnerability and related position, navigation, and timing, the critical functions performed by GPS and related orbital systems. His 2024 paper, “America’s Asymmetric Vulnerability to Navigation Warfare” called for establishing one or more or more complementary and backup systems for GPS.
Malaysia Signs Up for Aireon Space-Based ADS-B Surveillance
The Civil Aviation Authority of Malaysia (CAAM) last month announced an agreement with Aireon to provide its space-based ADS-B surveillance in Malaysia’s Kuala Lumpur West Flight Information Region (FIR). This will provide real-time surveillance of flights in that oceanic airspace where there is no radar surveillance. This may permit increased capacity due to reduced separation of flight tracks and increased safety due to controllers having real-time information about flight tracks, altitude, etc. The airspace involved includes a substantial portion of the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea.
Beta Technologies Lists on New York Stock Exchange
One of the clear survivors in the competition for advanced aerial mobility (AAM)—Beta Technologies—last month raised $1 billion on the New York Stock Exchange. Investors evidently appreciated the company’s approach, which relies on both conventional and vertical take-off modes for its Alia aircraft. It is also developing a hybrid power train, rather than relying solely on battery electric propulsion. Its planned product stages begin with cargo and logistics prior to passengers, with CTOL prior to VTOL, small aircraft before larger ones, and manned, followed by autonomous aircraft. Investors evidently consider this a wise strategy.
London Stansted Airport OK’d for Increased Capacity
Aviation Daily reported that London Stansted Airport has received local government approval for a large increase in planned capacity: 51 million annual passengers. Its current annual traffic is 30 million, and its previously approved limit was 43 million. Located 32 miles northeast of central London, Stansted is currently the country’s fourth-busiest airport. Most of its airline traffic is from low-cost carriers (LCCs) and charter operators.
Air Taxi Company Plans South Florida Commuter Network
Electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) start-up Archer Aviation is teaming up with developer Related Ross and investment firm Dragon Global to develop and operate an air taxi network serving Miami, Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and West Palm Beach. The network would include the three major airports (MIA, FTL, and PBI), several general aviation airports and heliports, and destinations such as the Hard Rock Stadium. Among the questions not yet answered is whether a four-passenger eVTOL is the best fit for such a network and the business model—what passenger volume would be needed and at what price per mile to operate at a profit.
Adani Group Plans $15 Billion Airport Investment in India
India’s Adani Group plans to invest $15 billion in its Indian airport concessions over the next five years, per a Dec. 3 Infralogic article. That total is estimated to be 70% debt and the rest equity investment. Adani is also preparing to take its airport group public. The largest investment is likely to be for Navi Mumbai airport, including a new runway, taxiways, and more terminal capacity.
Infrastructure Fund Hopes to Buy Atlantic Aviation
Fixed base operator (FBO) Atlantic Aviation is being pursued by infrastructure fund Apollo. Four sources told Infralogic reporters (Dec. 23) that Apollo is in exclusive talks to buy the FBO from investment fund KKR, which acquired it from Macquarie in 2021. The article estimated that the sale price would be in the vicinity of $10 billion, a significant increase from the $4.5 billion that KKR paid in 2021.
InfraBridge Selling UK Airport Interests to AENA
Investment fund InfraBridge has agreed to sell its 51% stake in Leeds Bradford Airport and 49% stake in Newcastle Airport to Spanish airport company AENA for £270 million. AENA currently owns 51% of London Luton Airport. The deal is expected to close in the second quarter of 2026, according to Infralogic (Dec. 18).
Teams Shortlisted for Saudi Arabia Airport Project
Four consortia and one stand-alone company have been shortlisted for the planned Taif Airport public-private partnership. Infralogic (Jan. 7) reports that India’s GMR Airports is a stand-alone entity competing with four consortia. The planned airport is to be built east of Mecca and is intended to be operational by 2030.