steingar
Taxi to Parking
Says Gary Kelly, president and CEO of Southwest Airlines, in this commentary.
If ATC only had to deal with fairly recent jets, they could make the bravo areas a lot smaller down low since the jets can provide good climb performance.
But as a PCT controller told me, they still get old 747 freighters in and out of IAD and their climb performance barely beats a seminole on a single engine.
I'm still confused as to how a modern ATC system is going to change the capacity of the runways.
It is my understanding that the limiting factor here in the USA is not airspace capacity, it's not enough runways.
Right, but with a better setup, they could accommodate all of that in and out easier.
From what I've seen at turbines, two things really kill you: Time on the ground and time being held at an altitude other than cruise. You want to start up and be off the ground as fast as possible, and then get up to altitude. The Lear 24s had it the worst, but you even notice it with something like a Cheyenne.
nah we need more controllers. they keep working the ones we've got so hard that they get tired, take a nap, and get fired. so then the rest have to work even harder.
Runway capacity is another matter entirely, and one that I can't see really getting any better. They get planes in and out pretty darn quickly. Obviously there's nothing you can do about instrument approaches.
The talk about updating the air traffic control system is not about updating capacity so much as streamlining things. New routes and procedures that get the jets up and down as quickly as possible. Of course, I don't know how much new hardware can help with that vs. old hardware, but they seem to think the new hardware is a requirement. If that provides the end result, that's fine by me.
I'm still confused as to how a modern ATC system is going to change the capacity of the runways.
It is my understanding that the limiting factor here in the USA is not airspace capacity, it's not enough runways.
If ATC only had to deal with fairly recent jets, they could make the bravo areas a lot smaller down low since the jets can provide good climb performance.
But as a PCT controller told me, they still get old 747 freighters in and out of IAD and their climb performance barely beats a seminole on a single engine.
I'm still confused as to how a modern ATC system is going to change the capacity of the runways.
It is my understanding that the limiting factor here in the USA is not airspace capacity, it's not enough runways.
It's not clear to me how NextGen will help with those problems. It seems to me that there are two fundamental problems - the necessity of separating arrival streams in to different airports, and runway capacity. There's a controller at Boston Center who blogs about his job occasionally, and he describes working the sector over Albany, where he's running arrivals into Bradley, Providence, the NYC airports, Boston, Stewart, and maybe others. For low traffic levels, they can be separated with vectors - 'on the fly' separation, maybe. For higher traffic levels, though, they need to be separated procedurally. That's my understanding, anyway - please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe NextGen can reduce separation minimums, but it looks to me like a procedures problem, fundamentally. And I don't see what NextGen will do about runway capacity. NextGen won't do anything to help wake-turbulence avoidance.
Has a busy controller been caught napping?
I would like to be shown what it is that we actually gain - GA or the airlines - from NextGen. While I'm sure the system is due for an upgrade, it looks to me like the problems they're talking about solving aren't actually affected by NextGen. It's procedures design and RNAV equipment on the aircraft - that stuff doesn't need NextGen.
Could you send me a PM link to that blog? I used to work that same airspace at ZBOS. It might be fun reading.
I think the issue is that the current ATC computer system can't take advantage of the capabilities of RNAV.
Direct routings, optimal climbs and descents, and speed control so that planes arrive at the right place at the right time are possibilities that aren't yet really in the system.
It is fun reading (or at least, I thought so). No reason I shouldn't share the link with everyone, though: NAS confusion.
NERD ALERT: I read the entire Northeast US Airport Facility Directory (AFD) to stay awake one night. The preferred routes to the Cape were on page 444. Not sure if that is still true....(FAA related documents are approved reading).
Yes, but they want larger rings HIGHER - which leaves lots of space underneath for us.FAA is in a Class B airspace grab and they blame airlines and RNP / GPS routing. Airlines are crying to not be pushed to low to early on arrivals.
A few days after my "operational error", the subject of my last post (the whole thing is printed up and tacked up to the wall in my area at work, by the way, and I am asked "are you in a groove?" on a daily basis, still), one of the controllers in my area had a medical issue (not at work) which caused him to spend a few days in the hospital. When he was released, he stopped by work to find out the status of his medical certificate. He looked fantastic and well rested. It made me think about the working conditions we subject ourselves to. It made me think about spending the next 20 or more years of my life working in an environment in which having a heart attack and spending a few days in the hospital is an improvement.
I'm still confused as to how a modern ATC system is going to change the capacity of the runways.
It is my understanding that the limiting factor here in the USA is not airspace capacity, it's not enough runways.
SWA doesn't work that way very much, but they still have many of the same complaints.... In a hub-and-spoke system.
There, fixed that for ya.
Airlines made their own bed, but don't want to lie in it.
I know the NAS has to change over the course of my career. It already has in the 4 brief years that I've been at Boston Center. But let us not change for the sake of change. Especially if someone not intimately familiar with our system says we should. For example, the bean counters at Continental Airlines wish they could keep their international arrivals higher over ALB to save fuel. I'd be all for that to help out the economy, etc etc. So, I've thought about it. Alot. As have others in my area. I won't go into too much detail, but suffice to say, any adequate solution to this problem (in the eyes of COA) would most likely require us descending BDL arrivals lower than they are today (and then they would complain about not being able to stay high anymore), which would affect sectors in Cleveland Center that I don't even know the name of (whatever is west of the DSV sector), because they would have to get their BDL traffic under the HPN traffic, something they don't currently have to do. Since we'd be cutting off a way up J6 for ALB departure traffic, we'd have to tell ALB Tower to turn their departures to the east, instead of the west, affecting their split configuration. This would also affect our V487 northbound traffic, our PVD/ISP arrivals, the BDL departures also, and then who knows what in the ATHENS and IGN sectors above me. Again, I can't even fathom what else that would effect, some positively, and some negatively. That is just to let the EWR arrivals stay 6000 feet higher for 20 miles. Imagine the consequences of redesigning an entire approach control, or the whole midwest, or the east coast of the US, or replacing the computer that runs everything.
Well, 2500 years ago, the Taoists would have told you, "that will create problems that no human could possibly ever imagine". Luckily, my employer seems to have everything under control. Don't worry, they're experts.
Wow. I love that blog - I must admit to being an ATC nerd. But this gives an idea of why "NextGen" hasn't done much yet, and may never change things too drastically:
Yes, but they want larger rings HIGHER - which leaves lots of space underneath for us.
Unfortunately, for departures ATC still needs larger rings LOWER, which is bad for us.
Like urban sprawl, airline traffic isn't getting less.
It's the old legend that they created, which is not the reality anymore. I noticed when they returned to SFO. Southwest is a-ok with hubs these days.SWA doesn't work that way very much, but they still have many of the same complaints.
If we're going to maintain the same separation rules for IMC with ADS-B that we have today, though, then ADS-B doesn't really improve things in terms of system efficiency though it may save money on some radar equipment.
The FAA stated that radar will be used to validate ADS-B out reports to reduce potentials problems from the completely unauthenticated ADS-B messages. Thus we should not expect any reduction in radar coverage. (not to mention the post-9/11 needs of NORAD).
Ah, so the part of NextGen that actually does all the wonderful things the airlines want is the Enroute Automation Modernization program, or ERAM. This is the one they've been trying to use at Salt Lake Center (and Seattle, too - am I remembering that correctly?). Lockheed-Martin is the contractor, here's their fluff page about it. This FAA press release claims that ERAM will allow 3-mile separation at the centers, instead of 5. I think they've tried to use it at Salt Lake twice, and had to fall back to the old system both times, but only time will tell if this is just growing pains or if this will go the way of the Advanced Automation System.
Centers reducing separation from five miles to three will reduce delays on about the same level that RVSM did.
As I wasn't involved in aviation when RVSM came into being (and thus only know of the world with RVSM), what impact did that have from your perspective?
i'm guessing center controllers don't have an issue having plenty of space for any and all traffic passing through their areas. reduced horizontal and vertical separation in en route airspace still doesn't help the situation when all of those planes arrive at the airport and there is no room for them on the runway.
plus RVSM really screwed up high altitude cross country wave soaring
As I wasn't involved in aviation when RVSM came into being (and thus only know of the world with RVSM), what impact did that have from your perspective?
Centers reducing separation from five miles to three will reduce delays on about the same level that RVSM did.