On a clear day from my home in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the airspace above our heads has an unobstructed view to the southwest filled with a brilliant azure blue sky.  As the sun begins to set in the west and the sky takes on a reddish hue, a choreographed dance of airplane contrails fills our view above 18,000’, with a series of long vapor trails clearly separated by the same horizontal distance.  This is the evening departure flow from the metropolitan New York City Airports traveling along established navigable Jet Routes (J6, J48, Q430 and Q480) to destinations scattered across the southwest United States within Class A airspace.  Underneath this high-level aerial dance is the equally busy Hyper Eight Standard Terminal Arrival (STAR) flow of airplanes into Dulles International Airport at 10,000’ contained in Class E airspace; and, an even lower commercial traffic flow flies overhead in Class E airspace, northwest into the Harrisburg International Airport Terminal Radar Service Area (TRSA) airspace.
 

These layered flows of air traffic are contained within navigable airspace as required in 49 U.S. Code § 40103, Sovereignty and use of airspace.  In 1993 the United States adopted the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) airspace classification system that continues to define airspace areas as A, B, C, D, E & G.  The airspace close to airports & heliports is protected by Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS) which ensure safe clearance from obstacles when operating close to the ground.
 

A relatively unknown mystery of airspace use lies within defined FAA radar sectors located throughout the United States at air traffic control radar facilities.  There are literally hundreds of high level and terminal airspace sectors established to allow air traffic controllers to safely accommodate flights through a designated volume of airspace.  While tremendous improvements have evolved with FAA’s NextGen program, the design and use of the nation’s airspace has had minimal change since the 1950s.  Airspace along the Northeast Corridor resembles an Amish patch-work quilt with complex sectors that minimize user benefits and add to Air Traffic Controller workload throughout the eastern portion of the United States.  For example, performance-based navigation procedures outlined in the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign program, contained in the 2007 Integrated Airspace Plan, would have provided extensive savings to airspace users, passengers and ground infrastructure; and, reduced the amount of airspace each operation would require.  It would have allowed an antiquated airspace structure to morph into a functional asset, allowing significant benefits to the overall National Airspace System (NAS).  In spite of being on the cusp of taking a quantum leap forward in redesigning airspace along the Northeast Corridor, the FAA chose not to implement the Integrated Airspace Plan.

This FAA decision 14 years ago had a profound impact on the Northeast Corridor and other complex airspace locations throughout the United States, related to emerging aerospace technologies that are already shaping civil aviation airspace use, including Electric VTOL aircraft and Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS).  High Density metropolitan areas will be magnets for commercial operations using these new aircraft systems within airspace neither currently designed nor functional for high volume flight operations at lower altitudes, especially without FAA air traffic control services and below Class B airspace. 
 

Increased use of current low-level congested airspace, including expansion of existing Heliports or newly designed Vertiports, to accommodate an increased volume of VTOL & UAS commercial air traffic will require safety risk assessments, increased regulatory & procedural actions and interface with Air Traffic Management. 

While the FAA and NASA have initiated promising concepts of operation associated with UAS service suppliers (USS) and Advanced Air Mobility (AAM), to accommodate the introduction of 21^st aerospace technologies into the NAS, there has been no serious conversation concerning a fundamental policy change in how United States airspace is structured for air traffic control use.  The 1997 FAA National Airspace Redesign program enabled RTCA’s DO-266 Concepts for NAS Analysis and Redesign document which recommended, “Equitable Access for all Users”, “Accommodate operation of Unmanned Vehicles” and “Aircraft should be separated from each other, not from volumes of airspace”. 
 

An airspace policy change of this magnitude would require an unprecedented Government/Industry partnership involving all aerospace users and expected regulatory action(s). Serious discussion related to aircraft equipage & performance requirements, including new flight rules, automation and changing airspace boundaries are necessary.
 

Rapid change to our nation’s transportation system is creating serious discussions related to how intermodal concepts can connect our nations metropolitan and rural transportation centers to enhance the quality of life for all Americans.  Our nation’s airspace has never been under siege by so many new entrants expecting equal entry in all volumes of airspace, including metropolitan & rural areas, and into the stratosphere.
 

Our aging airspace system has served the United States well over the past 70 years in containing amazing advancements in aviation technology that includes the safest form of transportation to the flying public.  However, the 21^st century has brought an aviation “Kitty Hawk moment” to our shores that already has changed the dynamics of airspace use within the United States. This challenge requires a Marshall Plan approach, from both current and future airspace users in discovering solutions.  
 

A national strategy is required as costs associated with such an undertaking, including regulatory changes, are breathtaking. In the past, individual interests appear to have affected our ability to make meaningful policy changes in restructuring the use of our national airspace, either due to fiscal or political constraints. 
 

Government and Industry must rise together and view the entire airspace landscape and the challenges facing the United States. Compartmentalizing individual volumes of airspace to accommodate emerging aerospace technologies will limit our ability to achieve the transformation of our national airspace for all NAS users, this is true for current stratosphere & supersonic airspace programs and low level UAS advanced air mobility programs.  In order to shape a national airspace strategy, we must identify how to limit the volume of airspace all users require for each phase of flight, which will allow “Aircraft to be separated from each other, not from volumes of airspace”. This may require Required Navigation Performance (RNP) requirements for all flight operations within specific airspace areas.  
 

Establishing a shared view of our total national airspace landscape and agreement in how to effectively redesign this national asset is a goal.  The willingness to actually implement such an effort is another issue and requires a national strategy of commitment.
 

AUVSI has long been a staunch advocate for reforming the NAS in order to safely accommodate widespread commercial and recreational use of drones, and joins industry, legislators, and regulators in calling for increased FAA innovation and foresight related to airspace management. If the FAA does not meet the challenge of today’s aviators, states and localities will continue their misinformed push towards localized control of certain classes of airspace. Ensuring safe skies is the goal shared by industry and government alike, yet in its inaction the FAA has provided space for smaller actors to push forward. This cannot be allowed, and AUVSI will continue working hand in glove with the FAA to arrive at level of airspace management that will satisfy current innovations and those to come.