Questions for the FAA and the Alaska Aviation Industry

What is the viability of the equipage program for the VFR general aviation fleet in Alaska? Will the AIC agreement w/FAA really result in equipping 4000 aircraft in Alaska?

First of all the FAA intends to have the Capstone datalink available for most of the state’s IFR system without any equipage requirement.

What is at risk if we do not equip in the VFR coverage areas where radar isn’t available?

Most of Alaska's 4000 aircraft are VFR single engine general aviation aircraft flown by private individuals. Alaska’s VFR structure is the most hazardous aviation environment in the nation. At least the current data from NIOSH the FAA report this to be the case. The industries lobbing effort produced a loan program that suggests that the GA VFR aircraft owner will fork over $12,000 to equip with the Capstone two-way data-link. The FAA’s own pilot survey indicates that these airmen will not equip at that price.

How serious about the Capstone two-way data-link can the FAA be?

The AIC agreement with the FAA seems to require that 90% of all flight hours within a specified flyway must be by aircraft already equipped with the Capstone data-link capability. This is like a cell phone company requiring 90% of cell phone users by phones before they put up a tower. Just how serious is the FAA about deploying this service.

The FAA’s NPRM recommended that the Capstone two-way data-link not be considered for deployment until after 2020! Why?

The FAA’s NPRM did not address developing a comprehensive standard for NAS deployment of the Capstone developed two way data-link. Meaning that when such a standard is developed all previous equipment may not be able to play with the ground/satellite equipment.

Additionally, industry insiders indicate that “some standards” required by the NPRM would definitely not work with the current 400 aircraft already equipped by Capstone.

Why didn’t the Palin Administration recommend a General Aviation Grant Program?

Industry insiders have indicated that the grant program is seen as a give away program to an elite group of rich folks with airplanes. No legislator will risk the possible public scrutiny of such a program. There is no reason to believe that this situation will change.

Is FAA going to request financial incentive for operators to purchase the Capstone two-way data-link? If so will it be grants, loans, tax credits? Can we get to Nextgen without them?

Further complicating the equipage issue is the AOPA and the ATA’s response to the ADS-B NPRM. Both indicate that the real benefits of ADS-B cannot be realized without the two-way data-link developed/deployed by the Capstone program.
Also they indicate that deployment of ground/satellite equipment and the installation of the airborne equipment can not be realized any time soon (meaning within two decades) without some corresponding financial incentive for carriers and aircraft owner to equip.

The FAA has a long history of maintaining legacy infrastructures’ long after many people have stopped using them. The financial burden of maintaining the legacy infrastructure was studied by the Alaska Capstone office. The result was a big savings by FAA if the transition was financially facilitated by the government.

So why should the State of Alaska change their stance on the GA grant program until FAA answers the comment from ATA and AOPA?

AOPA says that the FAA will not address a standard for ADS-B, how can the cost of the equipment be reduced without a standard?