Faa Ato - Federal Aviation Administration: Fill & Download for Free

ATC is a part of the FAA. The Hierarchy is:U.S. President/Executive BranchDepartment of Transportation (DOT)Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)Air Traffic Organization (ATO) — Encompasses the entire U.S. Air Traffic SystemAir Traffic Services (ATS) — Encompasses Air Traffic Management (ATM) and Air Traffic Control (ATC), as well as their direct support positionsAir Traffic Control (ATC)

It’s really hard to say. Different sectors of the aviation community have very different takes on the whole issue. (And OBTW it’ll be Congress that ultimately decides how this will go — privatization cannot possibly be accomplished by executive order.)First, I’d suggest checking out what’s being said on the subject of privatization at some of the following organizational Web sites:Airlines For America |Advancing Aviation Safety and Security since 1931NATCA HomepageGeneral Aviation Manufacturers AssociationAirports Council International - North AmericaNBAA - National Business Aviation AssociationHome (American Association of Airport Executives)General Aviation's largest, most influential association in the worldNational Air Transportation AssociationAir Traffic Control AssociationConfused? Good. That’s a start.Privatized air traffic control has worked elsewhere in the world, but nowhere else in the world do you find the incredible volume of air traffic operating in the U.S. on a daily basis. Also, in most countries with a fair amount of controlled operations, it’s pretty rare to find general aviation aircraft operating under visual flight rules given nearly as much leeway as they enjoy in U.S. domestic airspace. So, there are operational and political dimensions to consider. The airlines have a lot of clout, but they also have pretty well defined needs that, if satisfied through privatization, may leave a lot of other users in the lurch to various degrees.Two other practical issues arise as well — one national security-related, and one administrative.The FAA, the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security all cooperate and interact with respect to monitoring and ensuring the security of aviation. I’m not sure I’m comfortable with a private, for-profit corporation being entrusted to maintain and support that functional relationship properly.When the “performance-based organization” concept that became known as the “Air Traffic Organization” (ATO) took hold at the turn of the century, in my professional opinion it was done wrong. The FAA used to have three primary “lines of business” — Regulation and Certification (AVR), Airports (ARP), and Air Traffic (AAT). Guess which one was/is the only one to have any direct linkage to the FAA’s legally prescribed mission? (Hint: it’s the one that was done away with as a part of the “regulatory” side of the FAA.)To the latter point, pardon the lengthy quote that follows, but it’s important. From Section 40103(b) of the United States Code (49 U.S.C. 40103):(b) Use of Airspace.—(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.(2)The Administrator shall prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for—(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft;(B) protecting individuals and property on the ground;(C) using the navigable airspace efficiently; and(D) preventing collision between aircraft, between aircraft and land or water vehicles, and between aircraft and airborne objects.(3)To establish security provisions that will encourage and allow maximum use of the navigable airspace by civil aircraft consistent with national security, the Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall—(A) establish areas in the airspace the Administrator decides are necessary in the interest of national defense; and(B) by regulation or order, restrict or prohibit flight of civil aircraft that the Administrator cannot identify, locate, and control with available facilities in those areas.In the 2000 timeframe, every office with “air traffic” in its title was lumped together and thrown into the ATO. Then, the “Aviation Safety” line of business (a self-re-branding of the former AVR) set up an “air traffic oversight service” to keep an eye on ATO, seeing as they were no longer part of the regulatory business and all. Game, set, match — one less line of business to compete with, and de facto control over how its diminished successor is run.In other words, the folks who deal with airspace — the vast majority of whom are in the ATO these days — wound up outside the regulatory line of business structure of the FAA thanks to the first round of “reform.” The next round — privatization — could totally disconnect them from the agency itself… but the agency’s mission as set forth in public law revolves around airspace, not licensing pilots, certifying aircraft or operating airports.Huh.Nobody ever really seems to have stopped and thought about the fact that “air traffic” as a line of business actually did things that had nothing to do with the delivery of air traffic control services. However, setting that aside, the folks in the headsets make up the largest population within the ATO, and they provide the services that should be the only piece of the ATO that’s privatized (assuming doing so really is that hot an idea in the first place).Honestly, I don’t know if common sense will come into the mix at this late date to restore airspace management responsibilities to their rightful place as a central part of the FAA’s regulatory business structure. I kind of doubt it — too many entrenched interests have filled the vacuum left by the out-placement of ATO in the intervening fifteen years.The wild card is that the new “commercial space transportation” line of business needs to be able to blast through airspace (even if it’s used by others) fairly routinely to accommodate the growth of that economic sector. Maybe they’d see a restored AAT as an obstacle to their way forward; then again, maybe they’d find it a lot harder to deal with a private corporation every time they wanted to launch something.To me at least, there’s one clear consequence associated with ATC privatization. In my opinion, “user fees” inevitably will accompany privatization (because the very act of privatization will represent a judgment that air traffic control is not an “inherently governmental function). So, ticket prices will go up — I don’t really care what others might argue on that point, because it’ll happen regardless of how it’s packaged — and non-airline participants in the system will have a choice: pay for the services that make flying safer, or fly under visual flight rules as much as possible and effectively be denied access to large airports in major metropolitan areas.There are lot of pieces on the chess board. It’ll be interesting to see which are sacrificed and how the end game plays out.