US Air Traffic Control Must Not Be Privatized | Opinion

The new year got off to a tragic start with a shocking mid-air collision in Washington, D.C. Most of us were left reeling, but some in the nation's policy circles have seen the horrific event as an opportunity to relitigate a highly flawed idea—the privatization of air traffic control (ATC). The other mishaps that have occurred since also have little or nothing to do with funding.

As proof that in Washington a bad idea never goes away, attempts are being made to rebrand the ill-considered de-coupling of ATC from congressional oversight and federal management as "corporatization," or "a customer-funded public utility" modeled after those in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand. Don't get lost in the Washington-speak: by any name, taking this step in the U.S. would be a huge mistake by putting "toll roads" in the sky for every flight.

Before getting to the flaws with ATC privatization, let's start with the facts. The U.S. air traffic control system is without a doubt the world's best. It handles more types of traffic, in more airspace and in higher density than all the systems I have just mentioned combined. And we have—by a wide margin—the safest, most efficient and most diverse air traffic system in the world. There is no other nation, or region, that is even close.

The tragic accident over the Potomac River on Jan. 29 was the first major commercial airline accident in 16 years. And when the thorough investigation concludes, based on my experience, I suspect it will find that contributing factors would not have been averted by a system that is not answerable to legislators and voters. Quite the contrary.

Experience has shown that privatized ATC systems like those in Canada, the U.K., and elsewhere are troubled by concerns over safety, traffic delays, technical issues, financial instability, and shortages of air traffic controllers. In Canada, a troubling recent safety audit by the International Civil Aviation Organization gave Canada's transport authority a "C" in safety oversight of its separate ATC system, Nav Canada. In other words, Canada's ability to oversee its separate, "customer-funded" ATC system has deteriorated on multiple levels. In the U.K., persistent revenue shortfalls have resulted in sweeping increases for air traffic service charges. Are these ATC systems what we want to emulate?

The good news is the path to technology and efficiency improvements is clear—and it does not require a structural change. A broad coalition of U.S. aviation participants have been urging Congress to pursue meaningful solutions to challenges in the system by giving the Federal Aviation Administration greater flexibility and funding to invest in system upgrades and more staffing. This can easily be done while still maintaining its essential accountability to the voting public.

The recent aviation accident was trotted out as a reason to "fix" a system that is the gold standard for safety across the world. The tragedy will likely hinge on the design of helicopter routes and reported failures to heed safety alerts on close calls. It will not likely point to the need for a radical change to an ATC model that introduces safety concerns, financial instability, technical and workforce challenges, and other problems. With billions of safe passenger-miles, and millions of flight segments, we should make improvements but take care not to "fix" what ain't broke.

Bruce Landsberg is retired vice chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), past president of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Foundation and their Air Safety Institute, and an active pilot who flies regularly in high density traffic along the Eastern seaboard.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.