Airbus380 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2030 times:
Did anyone watch like 20/20 last night with the ATC special? Because of all the "delays" the FAA approved new laws for ATCs. I have 1 problem with this. I don't think that ATC is the problem with all the gridlock and delays. I would love to see Stone Philips try to push some tin. Anyway they approved the following things:
1. By 2002, the minimum separation for 2 aircraft horizontally will be 3 miles instead of 5 miles. ATCs now push the 5 mile rule down to 2 and 3 miles. When the rule is 3 miles will the push the separation down to 1 mile?
2. Aircraft must be a minimum of 1000 feet apart vertically instead of the 2000 feet now. I think that the ATCs are pretty strict about this rule other that the horizontal rule.
3. Aircraft can have the ability to free flight. They can choose their own routes without the ATCs help. I don't think that this will ever happen. They want to do this to find more direct routes instead of the ATCs vectoring the pilots in "zigzags."
Hopefully this will "decrease delays that the ATCs start." That is so much bullshit. I would love to see Diane Sawyer or Connie Chung try to vector a heavy through evening traffic at JFK. Hopefully others see my frustration.
FXRA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 733 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2019 times:
SO now you can fly closer to other planes, and on any route you want. I was under the impression you could fly direct routings if your aircraft was RNAV equipped and with the consent of ATC. MY question is... so you fly a direct routing from LAX to ATL... are you still going to have to hold over RMG for 30 minutes before you can land? How do they plan to solve that one?
GOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2017 times:
Many of the delays, atleast here in Europe, are caused by ATC. The problem isn't ATC itself, it's the number of control centers. On just a short route like FRA-LHR you will go through a lot of different centers where it could have been only a few. It's all about nation pride and so, but EU is working on it, but it will take many years before anything happens.
Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
Philb From Ireland, joined May 1999, 2915 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (14 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2006 times:
I'm not going to get into a debate about separations but I will say, that with the change of separations on the North Atlantic, we in Ireland are now treated to Shannon ATC Centre, dealing with traffic on and of the Ocean to/from 15 west (the limit of VHF coverage), calling traffic on converging headings, warning them of the proximity of the opposition traffic viz:
XX123 opposition traffic 1000 above twelve o'clock less than 2 minutes.
YY321 opposition traffic 1000 below twelve o'clock less than 2 minutes.
As if the guys and girls hadn't better things to do.
However, I do want to talk about freeflight.
The FAA decided to announce this in December 1994 and the first public airing outside the USA was at The Privatisation of Air Traffic Control Conference which I organised at the Edwardian Hotel LHR early that month.
A very senior FAA staffer, L Lane Speck addressed a totally incredulous audience of around 120 ATC Chief Execs, Government Ministers, Airline Bosses and Equipment Manufacturers and outlined the principles. The seassion was the last of the second day of the conference, due to finish at 17.30. We left the room after I asked the Chairman to call an end to questions at 18.55, 35 minutes before we were due to have dinner.
Mr Speck's table was the most popular that night.
The system started on a phased basis from FL410 down, between certain city pairs and the US border and various gateway airports in 1995.
I took a not very scientific straw poll of crews on the North Atlantic flights I rode between 1995 and 2000.
Most crews knew nothing of the scheme, some said they would pay much closer attention to TCAS (!), most thought it full of problems.
Funding for the scheme (if it is to operate from 5,000ft up, all aircraft - including light aircraft - will need TCAS and INS/GPS and all control centres will need much upgraded confliction alert devices) was and continues to be a problem. Congress will not vote the billions needed and the ATC industry, airlines and GA users say they can't afford to fund the scheme.
In 1997 I was called to Washington and met Mr Speck to discussa series of events to launch Ha-Alaska, a trial that was to be run in Hawaii and Alaska where all traffic above 5,000ft would be free flight. The areas were chosen for their mix of aviation, a reasonable but not over heavy traffic load and because both domestic and international traffic would be involved.
My visit was in March, I was told the funding would be available in June and we agreed a formula and outline costs which, I was told, were acceptable. In June, Congress refused the funds for the trial as designed.
I'm still awaiting the call to provide the launch any form
of free flight, though I believe the original scheme and a very much modified and smaller Ha-Alaska is in place (how is it operating though?).
Will free flight work? Not without billions of $ in investment, training and mind set adjustment procedures. It should, in theory, free up airspace (why should every flight follow narrow corridors and come into confliction on every climb/descent and at every VOR?).
VOR airways in the US were put into place by the Eisenhower administration as a result of the Grand Canyon TWA/United accident. In essence, this is going back to the days of unrestricted VFR rules, with modern positioning and alert devices as backstops.
There is talk of a similar system for Europe but the mind just boggles at this. With so much military airspace relinquished around the world, perhaps a better way is to treble airway width, at least as a first step - but no -one has yet come up with how to deal with terminal area congestion at current and growing frequency rates.