ITT Wins Air Traffic Control Contract

A few thoughts on this...
1. If they drop the radar and go with satellite-based ATC, how will they pick up all those airplanes w/o transponders?
2. Will this force all of us to upgrade our transponders to Sat capable ones? I can hear the screeming about that already.
3. How exactly is this going to "help reduce congestion on runways and in the skies"? Is it going to force the airlines to plan flights based on runway capacity? I think not.

ITT Wins Air Traffic Control Contract
By DAN CATERINICCHIA (AP Business Writer)
From Associated Press
August 30, 2007 3:28 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - A team led by defense contractor ITT Corp. on Thursday won a government contract worth up to $1.8 billion to build the first portion of a new satellite-based air traffic control system.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which awarded the contract, said upgrading the system used to manage commercial and general aviation traffic will help reduce congestion on runways and in the skies, and do so at a lower cost than the existing radar-based system.

White Plains, N.Y.-based ITT beat out teams led by defense contracting giants Lockheed Martin Corp. and Raytheon Co.

The full upgrade of the air traffic control system is expected to cost more than $15 billion and take nearly 20 years to build.

ITT will receive $207 million for the first three years of its work on the contract, which could be spread out over a total of 18 years.

The current system uses 50-year-old analog radar technology to handle roughly 85,000 flights per day, a number predicted to reach more than 111,000 daily flights by 2020. A satellite-based system could handle about three times current air traffic levels.

Congress has until Sept. 30 to reauthorize the FAA and possibly raise taxes and fees to pay for upgrades to the traffic control system and other aviation programs. But commercial airlines are battling corporate jets and small plane operators over what share of the cost they each should shoulder.

The Department of Transportation earlier this month said the airline industry's on-time performance in the first half of 2007 was its worst since comparable data began being collected in 1995. But despite expected delays, 15.7 million passengers are expected to fly on U.S. airlines over the extended Labor Day holiday, the Air Transport Association said last week.

FAA Administrator Marion Blakey on Thursday said if the agency's reauthorization does not tie its revenue to its business costs, "the improvements will sputter along, the delays will only get worse and every weekend will feel like Labor Day."

---

AP Business Writer Donna Borak contributed to this report.

I don't Get It

To paraphrase the old song, Home on the Range, "the skies are not crowded all day". They are crowded around major airports at some times of the day and they are crowded along Victor airways, sometimes. As Bill points out, runway capacity is a constraint on the system. So are the airways.

OK, so ADSB is arguably more precise and ultimately cheaper than RADAR. Bill's right that it won't see non-transponder aircraft, but often or even usually, ATC can't see them either - primary targets are iffy at best. ADSB doesn't solve the problem of separation and timing and it doesn't provide more runway capacity within the constraints of separation and timing.

And yes, ADSB would have to require TSO'd GPS based satellite capable transponders. That seems to me a given. That's a huge financial hit for GA.

Flying direct would save time, save fuel, reduce cloud-forming contrails and reduce the BS about Global Warming a little. I don't see why we need ADSB to fly direct or, for that matter, to more waypoints defined purely by GPS and not dependent on VOR's. Ignoring the TSO issue, nearly all of us can do it now with exactly the same precision that ADSB will have. WAAS, baby.

This will be another fiasco

The time will be much longer IF it is completed

Cost will probably be double.

The cost to airlines will be tremendous as well.

It won't solve anything despite all the hype.

I won't add that stuff. Don't need it. Don't want it.

Not to defend this program, because I know very little about it, but from what I understand, it will theoretically allow more traffic in the skies because it will allow controllers to place aircraft in closer proximity to each other because the GPS position is much more accurate than radar position. In the past, because of the margin of error in radar positioning, controllers have had to have airplanes farther apart than they really need to be.

Agreed, though, that even if the above is true, there will still be bottlenecks if there are not more runways and commercial gates.

Dont hold your breath

If you look at the history of FAA administered ATC upgrade efforts you will find a history of massive cost overruns, major schedule delays, contractor terminations etc etc. The FAA has a very poor track record of program management and requirements stability in this (and I suspect other) areas, somewhat fueled by funding instability and uncertainty and somewhat fueled by rapidly changing technology.
I remember Boeing proposing SAT based 3D airspace management and control over 10 years ago.
The big bang theory type government programs generally do not do well as they rely on the theory "and then a miracle occurs" to be successful.
I suspect some type of incremental capability approach would be more manageable (maybe using a combination of commercial assets like XM weather) or an agreed upon long term vision with matching long term multi-year funding, but congress will not let this happen as it reduces their "power" to screw with everyone every budget cycle.

YMMV

Well, I figure they'll mandate the conversion, just like they did for mode C in Class B. IRC, primary radar coverage is very limited. I think out in the boonies it's really a beacon only system. Turn off your transponder or don't have one and no one knows you're there. However I'm no ATC expert so I could be wrong. So my question is will they simply replace "Transponder" with "ADS-B" in Sec. 91.215 - ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use, or will they expand it use to encompass all airspace? I won't have a choice as my -10 will be IFR capable so I'll have to pay to play, but I'm still interested in the outcome because I'll still have to buy the gear and I might fly something simpler than the -10 in the far future and want to keep all the options open.

ADS-B is the different from what these guys are talking about. FWIW, ADS-B isn't satalite based, it's ground based.

That said...
These guys are cracked. ADS-B is the answer, but they insist on spending BILLIONS of dollars to try to eliminate ATC jobs, get rid of ground-based radar and put it in space where it's MUCH easier to repair, and try to somehow justify all of it by saying that it's going to somehow help with congestion... HOW?

Airports are congested, not getting there. THere is no way that a sat-based system will make minimum seperation smaller, ADS-b would!

Someone at the FAA was saying that GPS direct routing was going to be the answer... Bull... they already use GPS direct, just not in clearances, and it helps, but manditiory ADS-B would be the real answer. Airplanes would then see each other, as well as radar being able to see them, and the cost would be absorbed to a great deal by the consumers, who would have to replace their ModeC unit with an ADS-B unit.

The FAA is the most retarded organization in aviaiton...

FAA will not even manage the new system, ITT will. In other words, ITT gets federal money for perpetuity.

Just remember that when you're paying your user fees.

SAT based "radar" - ADSB - Analog radar - Primary -Secondary - QRSTUVWXYZ...... Ain't no way I'm ever going to use less than 5 miles under "normal" enroute circumstances.... 3nm in approach space - I don't care if the friggin data coming in is good down to 1 meter or not. When I have to look at a 150nm radius to cover my sector, do you have any idea how "close" 2 aircraft look at 5nm? 3nm? The difference between the two? Let's see... 2 jets approaching each other at ~450kts ground speed - even on a 45 degree intercept - that's around 700kt closure - or about 1200 feet per SECOND. If the "Man" lets us use 3nm in enroute (or less) - that means there's 15 seconds before impact from the time "official" separation is lost. Not much time to recognize the boo-boo, come up with a workable course of action, transmit (in an even and "professional" tone), hope nobody else (in the now more crowded sector) is blocking the transmission, the pilot of the "right" aircraft receives the instruction ("was that AAL1288 or 1228?"), time to put down the coffee and actually fly the aircraft ....... ?!?!? Yes, flying final with less than 3nm is doable - as long as the guy in front clears the runway in time for the next one to feel comfy commiting to the landing. Most of my rambling is of course slanted towards the heavy metal drivers - but for all of you (and me too) GA drivers - look on a controllers scope and count the jet to GA ratio - 15, 20, 30:1 - guess who's the 1?

Less separation while flying is NOT going to fix the system. Direct routes will NOT fix the problem. 2 things will: spread out the traffic (hub-n-spoke goes bye-bye) and more concrete. Period. New "flow control" technology can help, but nothing like is being advertised. Besides, the airlines really do think "flow" is a four letter word

WT
Miami ARTCC
Eligible to retire - and is it hard to go to work!
RV-8A - skinning the fuselage

It Takes Time

I have worked on a number of DoD projects over the last 25 years where ITT was the vendor/developer. Some of their products performed; but most were marginal.

Years ago, on one of my first programs with them, I heard the moniker that has proven itself true time and time again.

ITT = It Takes Time

One of the other "oldies but goodies" comes from working with these guys as well:

"You can buy better, but you can't pay more"

You know if Marion didn't lift the restriction on the number of international flights coming into JFK we would't have this big delay problem at all.