Aviation Policy News: Separating air traffic control operations from FAA safety regulator

In this issue:

• Separating ATC operations from FAA safety regulator
• Reviving the case for ADS-B/In
• A flawed approach to reforming airport security
• How could London Heathrow lose all electric power?
• Airports see new hope for PFC increase
• Hybrid-electrics to meet military needs
• News Notes
• Quotable Quotes

Time to Separate Air Traffic Control Operations from the FAA Safety Regulator

One lesson stands out from the horrific late-January collision at Reagan National Airport (DCA): the safety regulator (Federal Aviation Administration) fell down on the job of properly looking after aviation safety at this congested airport.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Chair Jennifer Homendy was astounded that no action had been taken despite a mountain of pilot reports documenting near-misses and an obvious safety hazard where the airliner approach path to Runway 15/33 crossed over Helicopter Route 4.

New Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, in a March 11 congressional briefing session, acknowledged the lapse: “Why this information wasn’t studied and known before January 29 is an important question.”

As Aviation Week reported (March 24-April 6), Duffy asked, “When this data comes in, how did the FAA not know? How do they not study the data to say, ‘Hey, this is a hot spot. We’re having near-misses, and if we don’t change our way, we’re going to lose lives.’ But that wasn’t done.”

Duffy was not the only one upset by this regulatory failure. In testimony before the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, former air traffic controllers’ union president Paul Rinaldi told lawmakers, “It’s been a known conflict area for years. FAA should look at these known conflict areas and deconflict them so we don’t have to worry about them.”

And at a hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee’s Aviation Subcommittee, Acting FAA Administrator Chris Rocheleau said, “The reports that came in previously were certainly analyzed, but something was missed.”

That did not satisfy subcommittee members. “You had an alarm going off once a month [referring to TCAS alerts]. You had the data. While I get that AI is a very new and interesting technology, it’s no substitute for FAA having an oversight over this level of traffic,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA).

How the Federal Aviation Administration handled the pilot reports data will be “one of NTSB’s primary focus areas as it continues its investigation of the collision,” Homendy said. FAA’s Safety Management System, SMS, lays out protocols for investigating incidents and evaluating risks. I’m sure NTSB will be looking into those protocols.

Former FAA Administrator Michael Whitaker hit the nail on the head in his Aviation Daily interview on Feb. 28: “[There is] an inherent conflict in FAA being both the regulator and the operator. You can’t be the conductor and [also] play the tuba section. Sometimes, as a regulator, you really have to bring the hammer down, and it’s a lot to ask to bring the hammer down on yourself.”

That is why numerous aviation experts have long called for the separation of aviation safety regulation from air traffic control operations. Self-regulation poses an inherent conflict of interest, as repeatedly emphasized by the highly respected aviation safety expert Clinton V. Oster in books and reports.

Former FAA Administrator Langhorne Bond co-authored an article with me calling for the separation of air traffic control and safety regulation in the Journal of Air Traffic Control in 2010. Other former FAA administrators also endorsed the idea, including Randy Babbitt, Allan McArtor, and David Hinson, along with a number of associate administrators. Three previous chief operating officers of FAA’s Air Traffic Organization—Russ Chew, Hank Krakowski, and David Grizzle—have also endorsed the idea.

This is hardly a new or radical concept. In 2001, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) called for the organizational separation of air traffic control and aviation safety regulation. Today, the only developed countries that have not done this are Japan and the United States.

In 2014, MITRE released a report called “CAA International Structures,” researching what happened in leading nations that separated ATC provision from government air safety regulation. It focused mostly on Australia, Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand, and the U.K. Among the study’s conclusions were the following:

“Despite the many approaches to organizing the CAA and the ANSP, in each case the safety record of the ANSP was equal to or better than the record prior to the separation. . . . The CAAs we interviewed were unanimous in stating that the separation of the CAA from air traffic service provision was worth it. Among the benefits they expressed were an increased focus on safety by the Regulator and the ANSP, improved efficiency of the ANSP, reduction in total cost to users, and improved participation by aviation stakeholders.”

This idea is sometimes confused with “ATC privatization,” though there is no necessary link between the two. Congress could simply require the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) to be separated from the safety regulator, FAA. The ATO would become another modal agency within the Department of Transportation. Since the ATO accounts for the large majority of the current FAA workforce, the non-ATO staff could be relocated to the Department of Transportation headquarters building in Southeast D.C., and the ATO’s D.C. staff could remain in one of the two FAA office buildings in the District, likely allowing the other one to be sold. And if Congress eventually decides to convert the ATO into an air traffic control utility, it might make sense to relocate it out of the District of Columbia, perhaps adjacent to the ATC Command Center in Warrenton, VA.

» return to top

Reviving the Case for ADS-B/In

As part of post-DCA collision discussions about aviation safety, I was interested to learn that the NTSB had argued in favor of FAA implementing both ADS-B/Out and ADS-B/In at the same time. For those not up-to-speed on this subject, pursuant to a law passed by Congress, all users of controlled U.S. airspace were required to install in their aircraft by Jan. 1, 2020, a new transponder sending out its position, speed, and altitude once per second—much more frequent than radar.

The original NextGen plan for ADS-B had also called for aircraft to install cockpit receivers that would display ADS-B signals received from nearby aircraft. The former was designated ADS-B/Out and the latter became known as ADS-B/In. An advisory body called an ADS-B aviation rulemaking committee (ARC) in 2011 urged FAA not to mandate ADS-B/In claiming that there was no business case for it. FAA subsequently dropped ADS-B/In from its NextGen implementation plan.

An aviation colleague recently alerted me to a letter sent by NTSB to U.S. DOT in Feb. 2008, arguing against the ARC position, explaining important safety benefits of ADS-B/In. NTSB’s primary focus was safety problems at airports, such as runway incursions and other accidents. NTSB’s Runway Incursion Forum in 2007 had focused on that subject, and one of its main conclusions was the need for better real-time information transfer to the cockpit, especially pilot awareness of surrounding traffic. Needless to say, in 2025, this problem is still very much with us.

In a recent email exchange with several former DOT and FAA officials, I learned that at the time FAA decided not to proceed with ADS-B/In, the reason did not rest on any expected increase in FAA costs. It was apparently a concern about the cost to aircraft operators of cockpit equipage for ADS-B/In. Here again, we see an apparent conflict between an ATC improvement and the safety regulator unwilling to value the airport/incursion safety benefits. Incidentally, NTSB has made it clear post-DCA that it still favors implementation of ADS-B/In, for the same reasons as in 2008.

Despite the lack of an FAA mandate, several airlines have implemented ADS-B/In for portions of their fleet, including the former U.S. Airways and, more recently, American. The latter has been evaluating such planned NextGen procedures as in-trail separation and cockpit-display-assisted separation on approaches to busy airports such as DFW. (“What Ever Happened to ADS-B/In?” Aviation Policy News, July 2024) Let’s hope improved flight operations, added to significant reductions in runway incursions, will bring ADS-B/In back onto FAA’s agenda.

» return to top

A Flawed Approach to Reforming Airport Screening
By Marc Scribner

Last month, Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) introduced the Abolish TSA Act of 2025 (S. 1180). The bill would eliminate the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), privatize screening operations, and transfer screening regulatory oversight to a new office that would be housed within FAA. Sens. Lee and Tuberville deserve praise for highlighting the problems with TSA’s bloated, bureaucratic monopoly on airport security screening and addressing the fundamental conflict of interest of having screening provided by the same agency tasked with regulating it. In last month’s issue of this newsletter, I discussed two promising reform options. Unfortunately, the Abolish TSA Act misses the mark and would perpetuate a major flaw of the TSA status quo.

The Abolish TSA Act would terminate the agency three years after the date of enactment. During that period, the secretaries of homeland security and transportation would develop a reorganization plan that would transfer TSA’s regulatory functions to a new Office of Aviation Security Oversight within FAA. This office would oversee the private companies that perform security screening at airports, and the office would contract with those companies under the existing Screening Partnership Program. In short, TSA would cease to exist, and screening services would be privatized.

Many critics of the TSA status quo cheered the introduction of the Lee-Tuberville bill. However, the bill fails to amend the Screening Partnership Program—the statutory conduit through which it would privatize airport screening—and would thus perpetuate the major flaws with that program.

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 was enacted just two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Section 110(b) replaced the previous requirement that airport screening be conducted “by an employee or agent of an air carrier, intrastate air carrier, or foreign air carrier” with a new requirement that screening “shall be carried out by a Federal Government employee” (49 U.S.C. § 44901(a)).

The major exception to TSA’s general security screening monopoly is the Screening Partnership Program, which allows airports to apply to seek the services of private screening companies (49 U.S.C. § 44920). Just 21 airports are currently enrolled in the Screening Partnership Program, mostly small airports but also including Kansas City International, Orlando Sanford, and San Francisco International.

Growth in the number of airports opting for private screening has stalled. Many observers point to a complicated and time-consuming process in which the TSA holds all the cards. A normal government contracting process typically involves a government agency issuing a request for proposals from qualified firms and then initiating a competitive bidding process. In the case of airport security, this might involve a sponsor airport beginning procurement from a list of security companies certified by the regulator and then selecting the firm that best fits their particular needs.

This is not how the Screening Partnership Program is designed. Instead, under current law, an airport seeking to opt in to private screening must submit a detailed request to the TSA. The TSA, if it decides to grant the airport entry into the Screening Partnership Program, will then decide which security company it thinks best fits the needs of the airport applicant. The security company is then assigned to the airport—take it or leave it—with the contract being entered between the TSA and private screening company, rather than the company and the airport.

Yet the Abolish TSA Act does not alter the Screening Partnership Program. As a result, top-down federalized screening management—and all of its flaws—will continue to exist under FAA’s new Office of Aviation Security Oversight. This is surely not the intent of Sens. Lee and Tuberville, so I will suggest some “friendly amendments” to their bill to increase the likelihood that their good intentions deliver their desired outcomes.

First, the Screening Partnership Program’s authorizing statute should be amended to allow airports to contract directly with private screening companies, which is a common practice at many European airports. The screening companies should be certified by the proposed FAA Office of Aviation Security Oversight to be eligible for selection by airports, but airports should be able to choose the screening companies that best fit their needs and terminate contracts with those that fail to provide adequate service.

The principal barrier to direct airport contracting with screening companies is payment responsibility. Under the Screening Partnership Program, rates are determined by TSA, which then pays the providers with which it contracts and assigns to willing airports. Requiring airports to provide certain security services without compensation would surely be opposed by the airport industry. Indeed, the airlines that had previously been responsible for airport passenger screening prior to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks lobbied for the creation of TSA to avoid such an unfunded mandate.

Second, to address these legitimate concerns, Congress should reform the existing 9/11 Security Fee assessed on airline tickets to actually serve its stated purpose. Currently, airlines are required to impose fees of $5.60 per one-way trip and a maximum of $11.20 for round trips on all tickets. Airlines then remit the fee revenue to TSA. However, since the enactment of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, Congress has diverted one-third of 9/11 Security Fee revenue for deficit-reduction purposes.

To fund airports’ private screening under the reformed Screening Partnership Program, Congress should convert the 9/11 Security Fee to a local airport user fee akin to the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC). Congress authorizes airports to impose PFCs of up to $4.50 per flight segment, with a maximum of two PFCs per one-way trip ($9) and four PFCs per round trip ($18). Airlines collect the fees on passenger tickets and remit the revenue directly to the enplaning airports. FAA regulates the use of airport PFC revenue by project eligibility criteria. Despite these restrictions, PFC revenue now accounts for a large share of commercial service airport capital investment, particularly on terminal projects.

Revenue from a PFC-style 9/11 Security Fee should be sufficient to cover screening operations at most airports, although the Abolish TSA Act’s reorganization provisions should include a requirement that FAA conduct a detailed financial analysis. Like the PFC, FAA should regulate the use of these funds to ensure they are spent on security-related projects and operations. For low-volume airports that might not be able to raise sufficient revenue, FAA Office of Aviation Security Oversight administrative costs, and other activities lawmakers deem appropriate, Congress could establish a separate account to be funded by annual appropriations, just as they do today under centralized TSA screening.

Adopting these two amendments to the Abolish TSA Act would do much to address well-deserved criticism of TSA’s screening regime. It would also better align the bill with the intentions of Sens. Lee and Tuberville. But it remains to be seen if Congress is willing to give up control over airport screening and the funds it raids each year from the 9/11 Security Fee account.

» return to top

How Could Heathrow Have Lost All Electric Power?

As we all know, on March 21 London Heathrow Airport (LHR) shut down for 18 hours after a fire at an off-airport electric substation led to it ceasing to provide electric power to the airport. Some 200,000 passengers had flights cancelled or delayed for several days. No comprehensive report is yet available explaining why there was either no or insufficient backup electric capability to (perhaps) keep LHR open at reduced rather than zero flights.

Very early in my career, I worked for a start-up company that was designing computer-assisted public safety dispatch centers. This was when the 9-1-1 emergency telephone number was introduced in the United States. With a single number for people to call if they were reporting a medical emergency, a fire, or a crime in progress, the new dispatch center would answer all such calls and dispatch the appropriate first responders. Given their life-safety responsibilities, these dispatch centers needed super-reliable electricity. Hence, I learned about uninterruptible power systems (UPSs).

It seems obvious that in 2025, all major airports should have the equivalent of UPSs. It’s likely far from cost-effective for a major airport like LHR to own and operate an entire electric power system, but it needs to be prepared in-depth for the failure of one or more of its electricity sources. These could include some self-generation capacity, contingent arrangements with off-airport providers, etc.

The U.K. government has enlisted its electric utility regulator (Ofgem) to assist the National Energy System Operator (NESO) to assess what happened and outline lessons learned. In parallel, LHR has asked an independent member of the airport’s board, Ruth Kelly (a former transport minister) to review Heathrow’s crisis management plans, its actions during the shutdown, and suggestions for “improvements that could be made to [improve] resilience.”

This catastrophe should not have happened. I expect major changes will be needed to improve LHR’s resilience.

» return to top

Airports See New Hope for PFC Increase  

Like many supporters of federalism, I have long favored a local aviation self-help measure that Congress legalized in 1990: the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC). Falsely described by airlines as a “federal tax,” it is not federal nor is it a tax that gets sent to the federal Treasury, like the proceeds from passenger ticket taxes and aviation fuel taxes. It is a local user tax charged by and paid to an individual airport and used by that airport to finance improvements such as expanded terminals.

The news that caught my eye was reported in the April 11 Eno Transportation Weekly by Jeff Davis, one of the best transportation reporters in the business. He reported on an April 8 hearing of the House Aviation Subcommittee, one of whose topics was future airport funding. Currently, funding for airport capital improvements comes from five sources:

Type	2023 Amount ($B)
Local PFCs	$3.615
Federal AIP grants	$3.143
General fund additions to AIP	$0.272*
IIJA airport grants (AIG)	$2.910*
IIJA other grants (ATP)	$0.970*
*indicates increased national debt

The last two began in 2022 and will be gone by 2027—unless Congress decides to make the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) funding levels (all of which is borrowed money, increasing the national debt) the baseline going forward starting in 2027. Keeping IIJA funding levels as the surface transportation baseline seems to have wide support among surface transportation organizations, but it’s not clear if airports and their organizations have the same expectations.

Davis reported that “Republican leaders seem dead-set against extending the various general fund ‘advance appropriations’ from the IIJA, which includes all of the IIJA’s airport development funds. But the timing presents a custom-made opportunity for the airport lobby to push for a PFC increase . . . to pay for the money being lost by the expiration of the IIJA advances—and doing so in a way that does not affect federal deficits or federal debt.”

Davis reports enthusiasm from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who, some years ago, co-sponsored then-Rep. Peter DeFazio’s (D-OR) bill to remove the federal cap on airport PFCs; that static $4.50 cap has cut the purchasing power of PFCs in half over the past two decades.

The end of IIJA grants in 2027 provides U.S. airports with their best shot ever at a significant PFC increase—or perhaps even the removal of this cap on a local self-help user tax. Massie’s previous uncapping bill would have made airports that increased their PFC above $4.50 ineligible for future FAA AIP grants. That’s a trade-off I think many large airports would be happy with.

» return to top

Military Needs Foster Hybrid eVTOLs

Under its AFWerx program, the U.S. Air Force has been funding several leading U.S. electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) companies to test their products for delivering cargo to troops in the field. Its Agility Prime program seems to have concluded that battery-electric eVTOLs have neither the range nor the payload to be viable for such cargo deliveries. Hence, its contractors—Archer, Beta, and Joby— are now working on hybrid eVTOLs.

Aviation Week’s Garrett Reim provided an update on these developments in the magazine’s Dec. 23, 2024-Jan. 12, 2025 issue. For example, Beta has two hybrid eVTOL aircraft under development for Agility Prime. One that has flown is an Alia A250 eVTOL with a range extension kit installed. The kit consists of a diesel-fueled generator that would allow the A250 to ferry itself, operating as a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) craft with up to a 3,000-mile range. Meanwhile, Archer has entered a partnership with Anduril Industries to develop next-generation aircraft, including a hybrid eVTOL. And Joby is also developing a hybrid eVTOL, with a hydrogen fuel cell as its range extender. Last July, Joby flew one of its S4 eVTOLs with such a fuel cell 561 miles.

Another approach that is catching on is short-takeoff electric hybrids (STOLs) and electric aircraft with conventional takeoff and landing (CTOLs). Electra Aero’s EL2 is a hybrid with a “blown” wing (greatly enhanced airflow) that takes off in just 150 feet of runway. The company has designed a successor: the 9-passenger EL9, aimed at defense missions.

There is a large array of companies aiming to produce and test mostly hybrid regional aircraft (for cargo and/or passengers). Aviation Week published a table last autumn listing 15 such projects, half of them battery only and the others hybrids. By not including vertical takeoff and landing, the battery CTOLs are projected to have ranges between 400 and 800 miles, thanks to the huge energy savings from avoiding vertical flight. Projected ranges for the hybrid versions are from 800 to 1,670 miles (for the Aura Aero EVA). The latter company, based in Toulouse (France), plans to use two turbogenerators to charge batteries to power eight wing-mounted engines for this 19-passenger CTOL.

These changes highlight the severe limitations in payload and range of “traditional” eVTOLs. What these newer companies (nearly all startups) are seeking to do is to retain the aura of electric power with the addition of wings and range extenders based on either hydrogen or fossil fuel. I think these may be a good fit for some military operations and might find market niches in certain low-passenger regional operations—but that remains to be seen.

» return to top

News Notes

Safety Improvements at DCA
The FAA and the Defense Department have revised several policies in the wake of the late-January airliner/helicopter collision. FAA announced that aircraft in the vicinity of this airport must operate with ADS-B turned on, and Army General Matthew Braman assured a Senate committee that the military will adhere to this FAA directive. FAA will permanently close Helicopter Route 4, per the NTSB’s recommendation. It will also prohibit the simultaneous use of intersecting Runways 15/33 and 4/22 (the main runway).

Italy’s ENAV Advances Use of Remote Tower Technology
The Italian air navigation service provider (ANSP) announced in early April that it will transform its control centers in Brindsi and Padua into hubs for the remote management of control tower functions at 16 low-traffic airports. ENAV also said it plans to have 26 remote towers by 2033.

Ferrovial Bidding for Perth Airport
Infralogic reported (April 7) that infrastructure developer Ferrovial has made an offer for 100% of the shares of Perth Airport, Australia’s 4th-largest. The current owners of concession company Perth Airport Pty Ltd include Future Fund, Utilities Trust of Australia, Australian Super, and Macquarie’s The Infrastructure Fund. The airport company has a 99-year P3 lease, awarded in 1997. Ferrovial aims to renew its airports portfolio after selling its stakes in London Heathrow and the AGS airports in the U.K.

Airline CEO Nominated for FAA Administrator
Bryan Bedford, the CEO of Republic Airways, has been nominated by President Trump to head the Federal Aviation Administration. Bedford has three decades of aviation leadership. He is also a pilot with sensible views about airline pilot training. His position on air traffic control reform is not known, but one of his current board members is David Grizzle, a supporter of reform and a former COO of FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO).

U.K. Airports Seek Expanded Capacity
With the relatively new Labor government favoring the long-planned third runway at London Heathrow and conversion of the taxiway at London Gatwick into a second runway, other airports have announced plans to expand their capacity. London Stansted hopes to increase its annual passenger capacity by 70% by 2040, Aviation Daily reported, and London City Airport is seeking approval to be served by Airbus A320neo capable of 194 passengers. Finally, London Luton recently received permission to nearly double its annual passenger capacity, from 18 million to 32 million, per Aviation Daily. The U.K. is no longer bound by European Union climate mandates.

Controller Training Initiative (CTI) Gets a Fifth School
Vaughn College on Long Island has signed an agreement with FAA to enhance its curriculum to cover all the subject matter taught at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. Vaughn CTI graduates who pass the Air Traffic Skills Assessment (ATSA) will be able to bypass the Academy and be assigned to an ATC facility for on-the-job training. This change is expected to increase the number of controller trainees entering the FAA workforce each year.

Private Investment Continues to Expand India’s Airport Capacity
First quarter 2025 brought additional public-private partnership (P3) news in India’s airports sector. In February, the government announced that a privatization process will proceed for 13 more airports, as air travel continues to boom in that country. On March 7, Infralogic reported that India-based GMR Airports has acquired Fraport’s 10% stake in Delhi International Airport, increasing GMR’s share to 74%. And on March 18, the same newsletter reported that Mumbai International Airport, owned by Adani Airport Holdings, will invest $1.16 billion in terminal and other capacity expansions over the next five years.

Skyports and Blade Air Mobility Team Up in New York
Aiming to pave the way for eventual eVTOL service from lower Manhattan to JFK airport, the vertiport company and an experienced passenger helicopter service in March announced a joint venture, aiming to launch this month, from the existing heliport near Wall Street. The program will expand Blade’s existing by-the-seat helicopter service to and from JFK. The plan is to amass passenger data and gradually convert the heliport into an eVTOL vertiport. The service will initially operate between 3 and 7 PM, with per-seat flights starting at $195.

ICAO Plans New Noise Rules for Supersonic Airliners
The 13th annual meeting of ICAO’s Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection reached agreement that current Chapter 14 noise levels on take-off and landing will be applied to supersonic passenger-carrying aircraft. The proposal was supported by Boom Supersonic, which has long said that its planned Mach 1.7 Overture supersonic transport is being designed with those limits in mind.

Will Newark’s New Terminal Be America’s Next Major Terminal P3?
Infralogic reported (April 1) that teams are beginning to form to bid for redevelopment of Newark’s Terminal B. Companies mentioned in the article include Ferrovial, Meridiam Infrastructure, and Vantage Airport Group. All three of these firms are or have been involved with other Port Authority P3 terminal projects at LaGuardia (LGA) and Kennedy (JFK). Last October, the agency’s board approved planning funds of $35 million for the project and will look into financing options, including airline financing, P3s, or other alternatives.
 
Jet Zero’s BWB Would Save on Maintenance, as Well as Fuel
JetZero, the leading developer of blended wing body (BWB) airliners and military transports, told attendees at an Aviation Week MRO Americas conference in Atlanta earlier this month that, in addition to its projected 30% fuel savings from reduced aerodynamic drag, expected maintenance will occur 30% less often, providing additional operating-cost savings. The key innovation is said to be fiber optic sensors throughout the aircraft, monitoring numerous parameters. JetZero is developing a demonstrator in conjunction with Northrop Grumman’s Scaled Composites division, under a $235 million Air Force contract. The first flight is expected in 2027.

U.K. Planning Airspace Reform
The Labor government, as part of its plans to increase U.K. economic productivity, is working with the U.K. ANSP (NATS) to create a U.K. Airspace Design Service that would revamp the country’s airspace and air traffic management to permit more more-direct flights, less holding near airports, and other streamlining to save both time and fuel/emissions. Both Airlines U.K. and Airports U.K. have endorsed this effort.

Blue Origin’s New Glenn Wins Approval for National Security Launches
On April 4, Blue Origin announced that it had been qualified to launch national security payloads with its New Glenn rocket. New Glenn has qualified as a National Security Space Launch (NSSL) heavy lift provider for the Department of Defense and the National Reconnaissance Office, the company announced.

Ecuador Further Liberalizes Airline Service
The government of Ecuador, which signed an open-skies agreement with the United States in 2022, has announced that it will recognize air operator certificates (AOCs) from other countries in the Andean region that meet ICAO standards. At present, Colombia is Ecuador’s largest international market, according to OAG.

Virgin Atlantic Picks Joby to Replace Vertical Aerospace
With British startup Vertical Aerospace short of funding, Virgin Atlantic (which at one point planned to order 150 of it eVTOLs), has shifted its plans to Joby, one of the two leading American eVTOL developers. Industry experts rank Archer and Joby as the most likely to achieve FAA certification within the next two years.

Avelo Adds Fourth Overseas Destination
Low-cost carrier Avelo has announced that Nassau, Bahamas, will be its fourth international destination, with initial flights planned from Raleigh-Durham, NC. Its existing overseas points are Montego Bay (Jamaica), Punta Cana (Dominican Republic), and Cancun (Mexico). Avelo launched its first flights in 2021 and has grown rapidly.

» return to top

Quotable Quotes

“Putting aside the serious issues with the helicopter routes sharing airspace with landing and departing passenger aircraft [at DCA], closing runway 15/33 should also be considered. Intersecting runways have long been known to create risk, on the ground and in the air. That’s why the published standards don’t allow them! DCA has had recent near misses that involved two commercial aircraft on intersecting runways. That runway would never be approved for construction today. Think how many billions Chicago spent to eliminate their intersecting runways. Denver, Atlanta, DFW—all modern airfields do not have intersecting runways. Not long ago FAA instituted the converging operations rule for runways that don’t cross on the ground but which are oriented so that trajectories cross in flight. They increased minimum separation for those conditions. The DCA controller reportedly moved AA flight 5342 to runway 33 to allow time for another aircraft to take off using runway 1. Operating things that tightly causes complexity for the controller and pilot (increased communications and monitoring). The AA pilot had to make a jog to the east, then back to the northwest, within the narrow DCA approach corridor—just before lining up for final approach. Would closing 15/33 impact capacity? Quite possibly. But if safety is really our highest priority, shouldn’t that be considered?”  
—Senior aviation executive and FAA consultant, email to Robert Poole, Feb. 24, 2025
(name withheld by request)

“Indian airports are some of the most beautiful in the world. They reveal what India is capable of—and where it falls short. . . . Bangalore’s Terminal 2, which opened in 2023, was designed as a ‘terminal in a garden.’ . . . The first major new terminals to open in India’s modern airport-building boom aspired to be like those Chinese ones—standard-issue glass and steel. Mumbai’s Terminal 2, completed in 2014, marked a turning point. Bangalore’s second terminal followed suit. Goa’s second airport, opened in 2023, is another example. . . . A second airport for Mumbai, scheduled to start operations in May, uses as its motif the lotus, India’s national flower. . . . India’s airports exemplify the power of privatization. Until the turn of the century, the state operated every airport in India, and most were awful. Massive amounts of investment poured in after each privatization. But the job is incomplete. State-run airports and other public buildings—new railway and metro stations, especially—are an eyesore.”
—”Great Expectations: What India’s Beautiful Airports Reveal About the Country,” The Economist, March 15, 2025.

» return to top

The post Aviation Policy News: Separating air traffic control operations from FAA safety regulator appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/aviation-policy-news/separating-air-traffic-control-from-faa/