I found an AviationWeek article talking about the FAA's mid-term plans for their NextGen air traffic control system. I understand why their policies have been written this way, and, for better or for worse, I think their new explanation of policy finally makes it painfully obvious that general aviation user fees are not an appropriate way to fund the NextGen ATC system.

After reading AviationWeek, I went to the FAA's website for their official statement and found a .pdf version of their NextGen Implementation Plan.

Now, if you've read any of my other articles you'll know that I'm cautiously in favor of upgrading ATC to NextGen. Though I feel it will make things worse unless major airports significantly boost their ground infrastructure, I am very much in favor of the hardworking folks at ATC getting some better (and newer) technology. That being said, NextGen will offer little, if any, benefit to most GA pilots.

The "governing principles" that the FAA has adopted for their system make this very clear. Appendix A of the FAA's Implementation Plan document lists equipment such as ADS-B, WAAS-enabled GPS, and electronic flight bags as some of the equipment necessary to take full advantage of NextGen services. Their official policy is “best-equipped, best-served”. That makes sense, doesn't it? How can you take advantage of a system based on precision GPS receivers and smart traffic avoidance equipment if it isn't equipped on your aircraft?

With my limited knowledge of costs for such cutting-edge equipment, I'd estimate that adding just these three items to a GA aircraft would cost at least $25,000. For someone who frequently flies IFR to large cities with a lot of traffic, this technology will be very useful and potentially worth the cost. However, for thousands of GA aircraft out there this equipment costs more than the aircraft themselves. Also, thousands of pilots in the United States do most of their flying VFR at airports where the manager is excited to get a couple dozen operations and sell a couple hundred gallons of avgas in a day. Those pilots rarely, if ever, operate in airspace or at airports where NextGen technology is needed to meet traffic demands.

Case in point: When I flew to the Sport Aviation Expo last month, it was one of the rare trips I'll make through Tampa's Class B airspace. I did it without any type of GPS on board (yes, it can still be done!) and chose to land at Clearwater Airpark instead of Tampa International. As fun as electronic flight bags are to play with, I made the trip just fine with VFR sectionals. NextGen would have given no benefit to this GA pilot, and I was nowhere near any traffic that would have been inconvenienced by my old-school, non ADS-B toting, 1950's era aircraft.

NextGen is potentially a good thing. However, only a great fool would actually consider asking a pilot to spend as much as or more than his airplane is worth to equip it with gadgets he will almost never use...and then pay user fees every time he wants to fly that plane. It would be like requiring the airlines to equip all their jets with floats and pay user fees whose funds are used to improve seaplane bases. It just doesn't make any sense.

A recent AOPA Article makes it look as though we won't have to sweat this topic as much this year. I hope that's the case. I also hope that we do find an appropriate way to fund NextGen. However, given the publication of the FAA's Implementation Plan and their "best-equipped, best-served" policy, I now consider the debate over general aviation user fees to be officially dead.