![[Credit: Wikimedia Commons]](https://avweb.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/10/640px-Seal_of_the_United_States.jpg?width=640&height=640)
The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) NextGen program, launched in 2003 to revolutionize America’s air traffic control system, has fallen dramatically short of its promised transformation, according to a new report from the Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released on Wednesday.
The OIG report details that after more than two decades and an estimated $36 billion investment, the program has delivered only about 16 percent of its expected benefits.
“Overall, FAA has delivered a delayed, over budget, and less transformational NextGen than originally planned. Many challenges continue to persist even as FAA transitions to its new modernization plans in 2025,” the report stated.
The FAA’s NextGen offices are set to close in 2025, as mandated by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. The aim of the OIG report was to explain the state of the NextGen program overall, to update on the status of key initiatives, and to highlight some of the major challenges and lessons that can be learned while the FAA is in the process of modernizing the air traffic control (ATC) system.
Among the key takeaways, the OIG report said that establishing realistic long-term goals and risk assessment would be crucial for the FAA if their new goals are to fare any better.
“In 2014, we reported on concerns that FAA’s NextGen plans were overly ambitious, and noted that FAA had yet to develop an executable implementation plan that addresses costs and technology development and integration,” the report stated. “As FAA embarks on new modernization efforts, developing realistic and achievable long-term plans, including assessing risks, will be fundamental to its success.
On Wednesday, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy continued his repeated call for another $19 billion in funding towards the new ATC system, on top of the $12.5 billion that was awarded earlier this summer.
So, after 22 years, we have an ADSB-out mandate, an ADSB-in that only works above 3000-5000 feet AGL in many areas of the country, and a continuation of the same FAA story decade after decade, mandate after mandate. The only outcome I can see, is now the FAA proposes to throw away centuries of see and avoid and navigation rights of way law and grant the right of way to half ton drones to share the airspace. Why is this permitted to continue?
The ADS-B mandate has become a real expensive joke, especially in the high traffic areas. The FAA ATC system has become so dependent on the IFR arrival and departure routes that when the weather even looks like a storm, traffic is shut down. Many times after a “weather” delay, when I get airborne I find little trace of any weather, and the frequency I am on is very quiet with little traffic. What ever happened to IFR? What about the reduced separation ADS-B was supposed to enable. 50 mile enroute separation? We could easily do that with the old system. The fact that the entire NextGen system is only 16% efficient really makes you wonder about throwing even more money at it. Now the ADS-B signals are being used to charge fees to owners and operators, and for taking even more airspace away from VFR operators to enable drone operations, things that were not supposed to happen. Even the FAA doesn’t want drones to broadcast ADS-B signals since the FAA believes it would overload the entire US ADS-B system. Now in Canada, they want to have ADS-B that is satellite based, not ground based, requiring a different antenna type for planes. What a mess ADS-B is becoming!
NEXTGEN was more a “concept of a plan”. There were a few programs already in development, but the concept mostly promised improved efficiency and performance without many details. Fat government contracts were issued to large companies who didn’t deliver much. In return, FAA administrator Marion Blakey, who launched the program under President George W Bush, landed a plush, high-paying job after leaving the FAA, as the head of a trade group formed to represent the companies who made millions but didn’t deliver much.
The B in ADS-B stands for broadcast, meaning “to whom it may concern” i.e., everyone. RTCA Special Committee 186 was established to write the specifications (TSO). Working Group 3 was assigned the 1090-ES (extended squitter) version using the 1950s-era transponder technology. After more than two years, WG-3 had still not solved the basic problems of data load and interference from IFF, ATCRBS and TCAS. Under pressure from Alaska, which had only two radars, Mitre Corp. had been tasked to take a clean sheet of paper and design a dedicated, low-cost (bush pilot) system with its own frequency that would work air-to-air as well as air-to-ground. The late Warren Wilson and Chris Moody of Mitre had developed the UAT (Universal Access Transceiver) which was successfully operated in Alaska under Capstone. A new RTCA WG-5 was started to create a UAT TSO, which took less than a year, a record for the FAA. WG-3 was still struggling and finally published a year later. Computer analyses by Mitre and Johns Hopkins APL showed that UAT would provide conflict warning and instant 3D resolution (tracking unnecessary) assuring a 1000-foot miss two minutes or more at closing speeds of 1200 KT (40 NM). The radar/controller lobby within FAA found this “unacceptable” and mandated 1090-ES OUT for the airlines and (your choice) ADS-B OUT for certain areas. Two data links that don’t talk to each other operating in the same airspace? IMHO, it’s time to get traffic separation back in the cockpit with FAA as the backup monitoring EVERYONE. All stress levels go down and no one loses their jobs.
I think it was Bill Lear of Learjet and the founder of Motorola who said “the FAA is a carbuncle on the (Backside (my word) of progress”.