Aviation Policy News: Cautions on a ‘brand new air traffic control system’

In this issue:

• Cautions on a “brand new ATC system”
• Why has the U.S. avoided airport privatization?
• Perspectives on the air traffic controller shortage
• Commercial launches for the Moon program
• Drone BVLOS regulations finally issued
• FAA moving time
• News Notes
• Quotable Quotes

Cautions on “Brand-New ATC System”

With proposals due Sept. 21 from would-be “integrators” of the proposed “brand new air traffic control system,” my in-box has been filled with questions and concerns about the viability of this very ambitious effort. Aviation experts with long memories are pointing to a similar project from 1983 to 1994 called the Advanced Automation System, AAS. It was intended to be a sweeping overhaul of the system, including large-scale facility consolidation and numerous technology modernizations. The prime contractor/integrator was IBM. From an initial budget of $2.5 billion in 1984 to its cancellation in 1994, the cost had grown to $5.9 billion ($12.8 billion in today’s dollars), and the net modernization result was next to nothing.

One of the longest emails I received was from a former high-level Department of Transportation (DOT) aviation expert, now retired. Referring to the current program, he wrote “We’ve seen this movie before (AAS) and it didn’t end well…I’ve scanned the Request for Solutions (RFS), and it’s breathtaking in both the breadth of requirements and the 3.5-year deadline, meaning that the next administration will have to answer to Congress for the likely failure to deliver on time and the inevitable increases in cost…The integrator is made accountable not only for its own performance, but also for the performance of its subcontractors…And of course, FAA has to approve a great many decisions along the way, one of the reasons AAS was such a disaster.”

A high-level Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) official, recently retired, wrote to say, “I read through the RFS this morning. It’s an impossible task. Despite all the intimidating clauses about ‘no excuses,’ I think there is still substantial risk that they accomplish nothing at all by the end of 3.5 years.”

Aviation reporter David Hughes interviewed several air traffic control experts who were willing to include their names. His article is in the current issue of Air Traffic Technology International, dated Sept. 9, 2025. Here are some of their concerns:

• Charlie Keegan, the first head of FAA’s NextGen program, expressed concerns about the single contractor, whose every move will need to get FAA approval. He also noted that to have any hope of changing things within 3.5 years, the project will need to buy commercial off-the-shelf systems from European companies that are used worldwide—but are not currently FAA-certified.
• Dave Ford, former manager of implementing the STARS program, said the new program “needs a new concept of operation for ATC; otherwise, it’s all speed and no vector.” He also called for outcome-based service contracts with enforceable performance goals.
• Steve Fulton, retired expert on RNP and performance-based navigation, said any new ATC system should aim to implement trajectory-based operations (TBO), networking all trajectories and providing strategic de-confliction.  
• John Walker, former FAA airspace director, told Hughes that FAA has not embraced lessons learned from the failure of AAS, which was cancelled in 1994 (as noted above).
• Gene Hayman, Keegan’s consulting partner, said that any serious ATC reform should separate FAA safety oversight from the air traffic control system—as nearly a hundred other countries have done over the past 30 years.

As noted philosopher George Santayana wrote in his 1905 book, The Life of Reason, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

» return to top

Why Has the United States Avoided Airport Privatization?

According to the Airports Council International, 75 percent of airline passengers in Europe use privatized airports that have either been sold to investors or long-term leased via public-private partnerships (P3s). In Latin America, the corresponding figure is 66 percent, and in the Asia-Pacific region, it’s 47 percent. By contrast, the U.S. figure is one percent, represented only by the airport in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which was long-term leased as a P3 in 2013.

Congressional and other studies have most often cited unequal tax treatment between the United States and other countries—specifically the use by U.S. airports of tax-exempt bonds. That creates a non-level financial playing field for investors. I believed that argument for many years, but after researching and writing a new research paper, released last month, I’ve changed my mind. Here is the reasoning.

Despite this disparity in tax treatment, in the few cases when a U.S. airport has been made available for a long-term P3 lease (airport sales are not legal here), there have been eager bidders. That is true not only for the successful San Juan lease, but also for two attempts to P3 lease Chicago’s Midway Airport and a 2019 effort to lease St. Louis’s Lambert Field. In this most recent case, 18 teams submitted qualifications, and a dozen of the best-qualified ones made presentations in St. Louis. There was no lack of investor interest; it was regional politics that led the St. Louis mayor to abruptly terminate the planned P3 lease.

In my new paper, commissioned by a special project managed by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, I conclude that the problem is not lack of buyer interest; it’s lack of seller interest. But it turns out that a significant factor is the non-level financial playing field. The paper, titled “Incentivizing US Airport Privatization,” was released in August by the sponsoring think tanks and is now also available on the Reason Foundation website.

Before explaining my new assessment of the problem, I want to first remind you of an outstanding National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper by Sabrina Howell and others that assembled data on over 400 airports worldwide and compared performance on a large number of metrics. Their findings are summarized in an article in the April 2024 issue of this newsletter. Very briefly, airports that were acquired or long-term leased by entities that included a global infrastructure investment fund performed notably better than government-run airports, but also better than airport privatizations/P3s that lacked an infrastructure fund. The advantages included more airlines serving the airport, lower average air fares due to more competition, increased airport productivity, and greater passenger satisfaction.

Then why aren’t city, county, and (occasionally) state government airport owners eager to gain these benefits via a long-term P3 lease? The main conclusion I reached in the new paper is that U.S. airport owners have no idea what a gold mine they own. It is also widely observed that elected officials with a major airport in their jurisdiction enjoy micromanaging that airport. But would that be true if the airport were credibly worth billions, and they could retain some critical roles in charting the airport’s future?

On the first of these points, the unequal tax treatment makes a very large difference—not so much to the “buyer” but to the “seller” (actually the lessor and the lessee, in a U.S. context). Under current U.S. tax law and policy, when an airport (or other infrastructure that has been financed via federally tax-exempt bonds) changes hands, the existing tax-exempt bonds must be paid off by the airport owner. Drawing on my 2021 Reason Foundation study, I estimated the gross value of 31 large and medium U.S. airports, and subtracted the amount of tax-exempt airport bonds the owner would have to pay off in case of a P3 lease. Most of the 31 airports had very large amounts of tax-exempt bonds to pay off, reducing considerably the amount they would net (up-front 50-year lease payment minus bond payoff). In some cases, if the airport owner could receive the gross value (as is the case in Europe and other regions), the proceeds would be enough to pay off the jurisdiction’s entire unfunded public employee pension liability. This new policy paper provides some examples from my 2019 study.

Would billion-dollar windfalls do the trick? They would only be available if Congress and/or the U.S. Treasury revised current policy regarding tax-exempt bonds and the change of control. In the new paper, I argue that a long-term public-private partnership is not the same loss of control as would result from a sale of the airport. As we know from dozens of long-term P3s in highways and transit, the public-private partnership is shared governance of the asset. To be sure, no serious infrastructure investor would agree to elected officials micromanaging small-scale airport business matters, but the long-term agreement would spell out how shared governance would work in cases such as adding or expanding terminals, lengthening or adding runways, etc. And the FAA would retain oversight of airport safety and other public interest aspects, as it does today for the P3 airport lease in San Juan.

One additional point noted in the new paper. Back in 2018, the Trump White House released its detailed infrastructure plan, drafted by D.J. Gribbin. It included the tax law changes proposed in my new paper, and the same set of policies was endorsed by then-Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao. So there is some potential that if these changes were put forth again, as first-term proposals not yet implemented, they might gain acceptance.

» return to top

Some Perspective on the Air Traffic Controller Shortage

In what amounts to a follow-up to the recent Transportation Research Board study on air traffic controller staffing (see the July issue of this newsletter), the FAA has released a new Air Traffic Controller Workforce Plan, 2025-2028. It offers perspectives on how the agency plans to cope with the projected controller shortage.

You may be surprised to learn that the FAA expects increased attrition in this four-year period, partly due to a larger number of controller training failures (at both the Academy and in subsequent on-the-job training). On the other hand, the FAA projects an increase of more than 2,000 controllers by 2028.

One problem that the FAA faces, which most other air navigation service providers (ANSPs) don’t have, is government shutdowns, another of which might occur at the end of this month. The report notes the FY 2013 “discretionary sequester” that led to a hiring freeze and the 35-day government shutdown in FY 2019. The reason that nearly 100 ANSPs do not face this risk is that their budgets are self-generated, via ATC user fees paid directly to each ANSP by airspace users. By contrast, the FAA depends on Congress to provide its budget, and Congress is not 100% reliable.

On page 12, the new report breaks down an expected loss of 6,872 controllers during 2025-2028. The breakdown is as follows:

Academy attrition	3,206
Promotions/transfers	1,456
Retirements	819
Developmental washouts	804
Resignations, deaths, etc.	587

This is why adding N thousand new hires does not necessarily increase the total controller workforce. Those numbers are further broken down on pages 18-20.

One of the most interesting parts of the report (to a data geek like me) is the Appendix, which provides a breakdown of 2024 staffing at every high-altitude center (ARTCC), every TRACON, and every airport control tower. For each of these facilities, the 10-page Appendix lists its target staffing, the actual staffing breakdown into certified controllers (CPC), CPCs in training, and developmental controllers. It’s then easy to compare the total with the target for each facility, showing which ones are understaffed and which ones (surprisingly) are overstaffed. The overall total at facilities is 13,774 controllers versus a 2024 target of 14,633—an overall shortage of 859). By now, you should realize that this is a moving target, since every year going forward will have changes such as retirements, deaths, promotions of controllers to supervisors, etc.

One topic the report does not address is potential transfers of controllers from over-staffed to under-staffed facilities. Based on the report’s Appendix, I did those calculations for ARTCCs and TRACONs, with the following results. For ARTCCs, 11 of these facilities have more controllers than the FAA’s target: the total surplus for ARTCC controllers is 234, compared with a shortfall of 148 controllers at the 11 ARTCCs with shortfalls. Thus, in principle, there is no controller shortage at ARTCCs overall. FAA’s report makes no mention of any program aimed at making it worthwhile for controllers to relocate from a surplus facility to an understaffed one. Since these are the most complex facilities, they are difficult for Academy graduates to master (compared to an experienced ARTCC transferee). Large (nationwide) companies make such transfers all the time. Why doesn’t the FAA at least look into this?

The Appendix lists towers and TRACONs together, so I had to select only the TRACONs for a similar comparison of shortages and surpluses. The surpluses are fewer and smaller than the shortages. Only eight TRACONs have modest surpluses, with Chicago’s C90 having six more controllers than the target. The largest shortfall is Northern California TRACON, short 40 controllers. Overall, 16 TRACONs are short 224 controllers, while eight have a small surplus totaling only 29.

The potential windfall is with ARTCC staffing, if the FAA could figure out a workable incentive package to motivate some controllers to relocate from a surplus-staff ARTCC to one with a shortage. Alas, the report makes no mention of this possibility.

» return to top

Commercial Launch Gets a Boost for Artemis Moon Program

As Ars Technica’s Eric Berger wrote on Sept. 8, “From the beginning, the second Trump administration has sought to cancel the costly, expendable [Space Launch System] rocket. Some officials wanted to end the rocket immediately, but eventually the White House decided to push for cancellation after Artemis III.” But as reported in this newsletter’s August issue, Sen. Ted Cruz added to the One Big Beautiful Bill extra funding to continue SLS through Artemis IV, V, and VI. But on an early September podcast, Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy questioned SLS’s $4 billion cost for each SLS launch.

A second positive factor for commercial launch playing a larger role was what Aviation Week headlined as “Starship Goes the Distance,” (Sept. 1-14 issue), referring to its flawless Starship Flight 10 that “puts SpaceX’s program back on track.” That includes not only its planned role as a lunar landing craft but also its potential role as part of the replacement for the hugely costly SLS launch program.

Ars Technica reported big news on Sept. 10, under the headline, “Congress and Trump May Compromise on the SLS Rocket by Axing Its Costly Upper Stage.” Actually, the change would eliminate not only the upper stage but also the new launch tower that would be required if the overall SLS vehicle used a taller second stage. Both the Extended Upper Stage (EUS) and the larger launch tower are way over budget. Although part of the cost overrun has already been spent, cancelling both now would save about $1 billion every year going forward.

In related news, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk on Sept. 10 said he is confident that Starship can start delivering 100 tons of payload to orbit next year, while re-using both stages. That would be critically important in an SLS replacement program in which multiple Starship and Blue Origin New Glenn rockets launched all the components for Moon landings into Earth orbit for assembly. This scenario was explained in the recent Reason Foundation study, “Why Commercial Space Should Lead the U.S. Return to the Moon,” released last month.

» return to top

Drone BVLOS Regulations Finally Released
By Marc Scribner

On Aug. 7, the FAA released its long-awaited proposed rule on beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) operations for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS). This rulemaking project had first been announced in Fall 2022, with a target release of the proposed rule set for Feb. 2024. While it came 18 months late, the proposed rule is a milestone moment for the UAS industry, which has faced steep deployment barriers for more sophisticated operations necessary to unlock the commercial potential of drones.

Over the last decade, Congress and the FAA have established UAS operational limitations, remote pilot certification and operating responsibilities, and remote identification and marking requirements for aircraft. FAA has been gradually relaxing operational limitations and integrating drones into the airspace, most notably in a 2021 rule that allowed qualified UAS operators to fly at night, over people, and over moving vehicles without a waiver.

But from the inception of commercial UAS and continuing today, drone operators have generally been permitted to fly only within visual contact of a remote pilot stationed on the ground unless they obtained a Part 107 waiver to operate beyond visual line of sight. These waivers also applied to the pilot as an individual, creating substantial paperwork and liability complexities for coordinated corporate activities. The nature of seeking mission-specific prior permission, as well as the FAA’s waiver procedures, together created a major barrier to advanced commercial drone operations.

The BVLOS proposed rule would create a new operating framework under Part 108, which is principally aimed at enabling the growth of commercial UAS. It is also an attempt at a performance-based approach to regulation, with requirements and permissions depending on particular UAS operating characteristics.

To start, there are two primary pathways to receive permission to operate BVLOS under Part 108: permits and certifications. Permits may be issued to operators of less-complex missions in areas with lower population density and with fewer and smaller aircraft. The FAA anticipates permits could be issued quickly. The other tier is certification for more complex operations involving larger fleets of heavier aircraft operating over areas with denser populations. Certification will entail a thorough review, and operators seeking certification will be required to develop a safety management system and personnel training program.

Depending on whether a permit or certificate is sought, and for what type of operation, operators will face more stringent limitations. For instance, a permit for package delivery will authorize up to 100 aircraft weighing no more than 55 pounds each and operating over an area of moderate population density (with the density limit defined as within 0.5 statute miles of a cell of 99 people, calculated by Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s LandScan USA tool, which would include some larger-lot suburban subdivisions). Hazardous materials are strictly prohibited from being delivered under a permit, which would include the lithium batteries present in many consumer electronics. The upshot is that parcel delivery operators seeking to build out a nationwide network serving dense urban areas with a diverse array of common consumer goods will need to seek Part 108 certification rather than permitting.

FAA’s proposed BVLOS rule would also create a new class of regulated entities called automated data service providers (ADSPs), with ADSP requirements established at Part 146. ADSPs would be certificated to provide UAS traffic management and real-time data to operators in both the permitted and certificated tiers. An ADSP is tasked with strategic deconfliction with other planned flights and “conformance monitoring” to make other airspace users aware of any UAS that are deviating from expected operations. Part 108 drone operators would be free to choose their own ADSP or provide those services themselves if they are properly certificated under Part 146.

While the proposed BVLOS rule maintains the current 1:1 operator-aircraft ratio, the FAA indicates that it plans to normalize multi-aircraft operations as industry standards are developed. This is in keeping with the proposed rule’s general preference for automated operations overseen by flight coordinators, rather than direct remote pilot control. Automated operations would, in fact, be mandated in certain circumstances, such as the proposed requirement that drones approved to operate in Class B or C airspace must be able to detect and avoid conventional manned aircraft, including those not broadcasting their positions by ADS-B.

FAA’s proposed rule on normalizing drone BVLOS operations represents a major step forward for both the UAS industry and the agency. It also suggests the FAA is getting more serious about aircraft autonomy, which has much broader implications. The FAA is accepting public comments on its BVLOS proposal until Oct. 6.

» return to top

FAA Moving Time

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy last month announced that at least some of the FAA’s DC-based staff will “gradually” be relocated to DOT headquarters in Southeast Washington, often referred to as “Navy Yard.” The FAA currently occupies two buildings on the Mall, the Orville and Wilbur Wright buildings. They are on a list of federal buildings that will be considered in a future round of disposals by the Public Buildings Review Board.

Since it’s pretty clear that there will not be enough space at Navy Yard to accommodate all of the FAA’s DC-based staff, the question before us is who should be relocated elsewhere. FAA has three primary functions. It is the U.S. aviation safety regulator, the dispenser of grants to and oversight of airports, and the operator and manager of the air traffic control system. The ATC function is the obvious candidate for being housed separately.

To begin with, in its regulatory function, FAA is at arm’s length from all the key players in aviation (airlines, airports, pilots, mechanics, repair stations, etc.)—all except air traffic control. Self-regulation is a conflict of interest. In 2001, ICAO recommended that aviation safety regulations should be organizationally separate from the provision of airports and ATC. Since then, nearly 100 countries have separated ATC from government transport ministries that house their air-safety regulator. The United States is one of the very few outliers. It’s also worth noting that the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 report calls for the separation of the Air Traffic Organization from the FAA.

The ATO should be physically separated from the FAA, and now is the time to make this change. While it would take legislation to make the ATO a separate modal agency of DOT, moving it to a different location is an administrative decision that does not require legislation. The ATO already has a facility in Warrenton, VA, which is one possible location.

When the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issues its final report on the fatal collision near Reagan National Airport (DCA) in January, I would not be surprised if it recommends separation of the ATO from the FAA, given the FAA’s failure to act on the numerous pilot reports of collision hazards at that airport, reflecting the failure of FAA’s self-regulation. Physical separation now would be a good first step.

» return to top

News Notes

Nav Canada Launches Remote/Digital Tower Program
Canada’s air traffic control provider has broken ground on the first of many remote digital tower facilities. Located in Kingston, Ontario, it is described as both an operational digital tower and a transitional facility for a system of Air Traffic Services hubs. This initial facility is planned to be operational by summer 2026. It will serve as the foundation for the ATC utility’s first permanent digital hub, hosting remote services for up to 20 airports. Nav Canada sees the project as the beginning of a broader Digital Aerodrome Air Traffic Services initiative, like similar programs underway in 16 other countries, mostly in Europe.

“FAA Runs Tests While Winter Haven Preps for Remote Tower”
That was the headline on an Aug. 28 article in the AIN monthly magazine. It contrasted the state-funded remote tower project under way in Winter Haven, Florida with the 30-odd such facilities already in operation overseas—and FAA’s slow start on this cutting-edge improvement. FAA is currently testing a system developed by RTX and Frequentis to serve an airport in Colorado, from which a previous provider withdrew due to FAA foot-dragging. The article notes that aviation groups such as the Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA) support remote towers because they can enable more general aviation airports to have the safety benefits of a control tower at a lower cost than a sticks-and-bricks tower.

Rocket Lab to Begin Testing a Reusable Rocket
Launch vehicle company Rocket Lab has developed a reusable rocket called Neutron to tap into the market for launching medium-sized satellites. It plans the first Neutron launch from the Wallops Island, Virginia space port, where it has built its Launch Complex 3, completed last month. The company’s original launch pad is nearby and is used for launching its smaller Electron rockets. The new Neutron rocket stands 141 feet tall and can launch payloads up to 38,660 lbs. to low Earth orbit. Its first stage is fully reusable and will return to land either at Wallops Island or on a recovery barge. Earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force announced a planned Neutron mission to test point-to-point cargo delivery.

The New York Times Targets Business Jets
In a video editorial last month, the NYT documented the pittance that business jets pay for ATC services compared with airliners. Since bizjet organization NBAA is the most powerful opponent of ATC public utilities, getting people to understand how subsidized bizjets are may help advance a needed shift to bizjets in this country paying the same kind of weight-distance charges that bizjets pay everywhere else.
 
U.S Applications for Aireon’s Space-Based Aircraft Tracking
Runway Girl Network last month included an article calling for the U.S. air traffic control system to start making use of space-based ADS-B surveillance that is available worldwide for airspace that lacks radar surveillance (oceanic, mountainous, etc.). The article quotes Aireon headquarters as suggesting space-based ADS-B in the Caribbean, rather than the FAA’s current intention to install only ground-based ADS-B. While the FAA is also responsible for a huge fraction of Pacific Ocean airspace, the benefits of space-based ADS-B would not be as large as those in the crowded North Atlantic airspace, where Aireon’s service has dramatically improved traffic flow as well as air safety.

Southwest Airlines Deploys Secondary Cockpit Barriers
Aviation Daily reported that Southwest, on Aug. 29, took delivery of a Boeing 737-8 equipped with an Installed Physical Secondary Barrier. Although Congress granted a one-year extension of the date to begin such equipage, Southwest expects to take delivery of 26 IPSB-equipped aircraft by year-end. Boeing is delivering barrier-equipped aircraft to all its U.S. customers. Southwest also plans to equip its existing planes with IPSBs once re-equipage has been certified by the FAA.

French Hybrid eVTOL Under Development
Although nearly all European electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) start-ups have failed, French company Ascendance is moving forward with what it hopes will be a viable aircraft. Potential success factors include hybrid rather than all-electric propulsion, seating four passengers in addition to a pilot, and range of 215 nm. In other words, it is targeting regional service for low-demand flights, a potentially plausible market niche, if the cost is low enough. Flight testing will begin in 2026. The aircraft will be equipped with wings, reports Aviation Daily reporter Thierry Dubois (Aug. 28).

Study Calls for Freeing Canadian Airports from Federal Rents
A new study by the Montreal Economic Institute argues that “exorbitant” rental fees are raising passenger ticket prices to uncompetitive levels. Several decades ago, Canada’s passenger airports were divested from the national government and restructured as local nonprofit airport authorities. But the feds continue to own the airports’ land and charge annual rent, based on each airport’s gross revenue (up to 12%). Airport authorities recover this via a tax on airline tickets. The average charge is $38 (far more than a U.S. passenger facility charge), and on some domestic routes, the charge can be as much as 43% of the ticket price. The study supports the airport authorities’ long-standing call for abolishing the rental fees. One approach to doing this (not in the study) would be for the national government to enact an airport privatization policy, under which airports would have the option of long-term leasing their airport, and sharing the up-front lease proceeds with the national government. That way, the national government would be compensated for the loss of airport rental income.

Ninth Collegiate Training Institute Approved
The FAA announced on Sept. 15 that Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University’s Prescott, AZ campus has met the requirements to become the ninth educational institution to qualify as a member of the Enhanced Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative (E-CTI). This program certifies college programs that replicate the curriculum of the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City, thereby expanding the number of controller candidates who can graduate each year. Assuming the CTI graduates pass the required aptitude and medical tests, they can be assigned to an ATC facility for on-the-job training without attending the Academy.

Freakonomics Podcast on ATC Reform
On Sept. 5, the economics-based podcast company released a 70-minute podcast on the topic of “Is the U.S. ATC System Broken?” I was interviewed for this some months ago, but my comments did not make the final cut. Long-time ATC reform expert Dorothy Robyn effectively made the case for the United States to join the rest of the world in separating its ATC provider from the government aviation safety regulator and converting it into a utility in which users pay fees for ATC service, which provides a bondable revenue stream for facility and equipment modernization. Some of the presenters did not agree with this approach.

Blue Origin Developing Lunar Mining and Production
On Sept. 10, Blue Origin unveiled an ongoing project aimed at using lunar regolith to extract metals and oxygen in order to manufacture facilities and equipment on the lunar surface. The project is called Blue Alchemist. If these techniques turn out to be feasible, it could make permanent settlement on the moon more feasible. What must be kept in mind, for each potential material (oxygen, glass, solar panels, etc.) is the cost of transporting a pound of that to the lunar surface, versus the cost of producing it there. Blue Alchemist says its goal is to make lunar production 60% less costly than bringing materials from Earth.

JetZero Looking Into Hydrogen Fuel for its BWB Airliner
While JetZero continues development work on its blended wing body (BWB) Z4 airliner, it is now looking into the potential of hydrogen fuel, under a NASA-funded study with SHZ Advanced Technologies. The technical feasibility of hydrogen is aided by the considerably larger interior of a BWB aircraft, compared with a conventional tube and wing structure. Guy Norris summarized the project in the Aug. 29 issue of Aviation Daily.
 
Joby Studying Hybrid eVTOL
Joby Aviation has contracted with L3Harris to evaluate a hybrid version of its S4 tilt-prop eVTOL. The potential application is a military version (optionally piloted) with a much longer range. A brief article by Graham Warwick in Aviation Week (Aug. 11-31) notes that other eVTOL developers Archer, Beta, and Vertical are carrying out similar studies.

Nav Canada Profiled in Boston Globe
Columnist Jeff Jacoby published a good overview of Canada’s nonprofit air traffic control provider. He draws a contrast between the troubled FAA air traffic system and the self-funded, de-politicized system that is far ahead in 21st-century technology, such as electronic flight strips and space-based ADS-B surveillance. With its bondable revenue stream, Nav Canada is able to issue long-term revenue bonds to finance major projects and to equip all its facilities with new technology in a year or two, instead of up to 15 years for FAA upgrades, due to annual funding from Congress.

How Can JSX Operate at Airports That Ban Scheduled Airlines?
In his Aug. 1 blog “A View from the Wing,” Gary Leff explains how JSX can serve customers at Teterboro Airport, where scheduled airline service is not permitted by the Port Authority, which owns the airport. JSX’s operations at the airport are not offered to the public as scheduled flights. They are offered only to members of Club JSX, a membership program for frequent JSX customers. Pretty clever!

» return to top

Quotable Quotes

“I was handed [on my second day as Administrator] the 670-page binder for how we were gonna procure the new [ATC] system. Like, ‘just sign right here, Mr. Administrator.’ I’m not gonna sign that . . . I haven’t read it, I don’t know what’s in it. It doesn’t look good. We ended up tossing that into a trash can and starting over.”
—FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford, in “Bedford Speaking at NATCA’s Annual Aviation Safety Conference,” Politico, Sept. 16, 2025

“While both Archer and Joby stocks are making substantial pullbacks from their record highs, investors may soon have an ideal entry point to build a long-term position at a smart price-point. But they should plan to hold the stocks for years to come. Investments in eVTOL companies should be viewed as long-term speculative bets on an industry that could reshape the future of mobility in the coming years—or go bust.”
—Ben Goldstein, “EVTOL Stocks to the Moon? Not So Fast,” Aviation Daily, Aug. 25, 2025

“Here is my one concern. If Artemis I, Artemis II, and Artemis III are all $4 billion a launch . . .At $4 billion a launch, you don’t have a Moon program. I don’t think that exists. We have to bring the price down. And so I have to think about and work with Congress. What does Artemis IV, V, and VI look like? . . . What is the answer? I don’t know, but those are things I think about. You look at what the private sector has done for access to space. For the private sector, you can have a satellite and get it into space for a little over a million dollars. That was unheard of 20 years ago. What’s happened to drive the price down of these vehicles? That’s what we have to think about, because the $4 billion figure is too massive to think we could be sustainable at that number.”
—Acting NASA Administrator Sean Duffy, in Eric Berger’s article, “Congress and Trump May Compromise on SLS Rocket,” Ars Technica, Sept. 8, 2025

» return to top

The post Aviation Policy News: Cautions on a ‘brand new air traffic control system’ appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/cautions-on-a-brand-new-atc-system/