steingar
Taxi to Parking
Says Gary Kelly, president and CEO of Southwest Airlines, in this commentary.
We need 21st century air traffic control
- Thread starter steingar
- Start date
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Well, it was resonably fair, and didn't take any swipes at GA. That, in and of itself, is worthy of note.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
No quarrels with it. SWA and others have seen benefits where the traffic flows have been redesigned with RNP in mind, and want MORE of it RIGHT NOW. This is only partially an equippage issue (ADS-B), it's much more an ATC system design issue.
Huge mindset change for the FAA and a tough problem to do in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, where there are lots of carrier airports densely packed.
Huge mindset change for the FAA and a tough problem to do in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, where there are lots of carrier airports densely packed.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,930
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
The statement he makes I think is accurate for the airline industry. Just look at NYC or DC and you see the jumbled mess that contributes to the higher costs. When you take a turbine that burns large sums more fuel down low than high, you need to spend as little time down low as possible. Around busy bravos, you have both too much time down low and indirect routings. I really hate it.
The system as it is set up works fine for those of us flying smaller planes in lesser populated areas. However around congested areas, it's a tremendous cluster no matter how you look at it. He has it right that the new equipment is worthless without the better routing and such. But I only end up seeing it really benefitting the airlines.
The system as it is set up works fine for those of us flying smaller planes in lesser populated areas. However around congested areas, it's a tremendous cluster no matter how you look at it. He has it right that the new equipment is worthless without the better routing and such. But I only end up seeing it really benefitting the airlines.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
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.
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.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,930
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
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.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,091
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
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 is my understanding that the limiting factor here in the USA is not airspace capacity, it's not enough runways.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
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.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
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.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Has a busy controller been caught napping?
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,930
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
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.
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.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
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.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
Here's the FAA's runway capacity charts for large airports, tabulated for different active runway configurations and weather conditions. I can't link directly to any of the airports, so click on 'East' or 'West' directory, a center, and then find the airport you're interested in. It's instructive. Boston, for example, can handle 61 in the optimal configuration in VFR conditions. With the current weather there, I'd guess they're down to 32. How many flights are scheduled per hour in and out of KBOS? I don't know, but I'm guessing 60 is closer than 30.
I should give credit to Don Brown - I think I first came across this on his blog.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
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.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,091
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
I think I wasn't clear. I didn't mean runway capacity, but rather the total number of runways so that more aircraft can land and takeoff at the same time. Whether this means more airports and more runways at airports or what...
BillTIZ
Final Approach
Could you send me a PM link to that blog? I used to work that same airspace at ZBOS. It might be fun reading.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
COFlyBoy
Line Up and Wait
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.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
It is fun reading (or at least, I thought so). No reason I shouldn't share the link with everyone, though: NAS confusion.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
Right - but that's the capabilities I haven't heard anything about yet. They used to call it 'Free Flight', I think, and don't recall that they ever got it to work. How does NextGen incorporate this?
Edit - here's Don Brown's take on it from a few years ago on his blog. He doesn't think particularly highly of NextGen, as is obvious - I think his blog is where most of my questions about NextGen come from.
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
TMetzinger
Final Approach
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.
Unfortunately, for departures ATC still needs larger rings LOWER, which is bad for us.
Like urban sprawl, airline traffic isn't getting less.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
Here's another rather enlightening passage from the blog:
denverpilot
Tied Down
... In a hub-and-spoke system.
There, fixed that for ya.
Airlines made their own bed, but don't want to lie in it.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
SWA doesn't work that way very much, but they still have many of the same complaints.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
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:
chucky
Line Up and Wait
Yeah, I enjoyed it too. When you're done with that, check out the other blogs on the right. There's one by a TRACON trainee at Pensacola that's pretty good, although he doesn't seem to update it anymore.
BillTIZ
Final Approach
Look at recent changes to ORD. SLC SEA and LAS are in the works, they are trying to push out to 40nm and they are lowering floors. Why does ORD need 4000MSL 30nm east over the water?
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,257
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
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.
Amusingly, the sea change at Southwest coincided with the change in livery from orange to blue. It's as if the new corporate leadership was installed or something.
TMetzinger
Final Approach
SWA has three major airports (BWI, CLE, MDW), but the flight routes still are more like stagecoaches or bus lines than hub-and-spoke. On any given flight it's likely that the airplane will be going through one of those three airports that day, but the difference is still there.
Compared to something like Continental, where every flight was either leaving from or going to a hub (IAH/EWR/CLE), a typical SWA flight day might be something like BDL-BWI-MCI-LAX.
Swerving back on topic... it seems to me that the number of runways sets the maximum possible arrival or departure rate, then the number of arrival/departure corridors is the next factor. An airport like KDEN with no other major airports nearby has a lot more available arrive/depart options, compared to LGA/EWR/JFK or DCA/IAD/BWI or ORD/MDW/MKE...
if technology like ADS-B will really allow airplanes to get as close to each other in IMC as they do in VMC, then we can get more airplanes in the same space in the terminal area. Even if we can get them somewhat closer, that's an improvement.
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.
Compared to something like Continental, where every flight was either leaving from or going to a hub (IAH/EWR/CLE), a typical SWA flight day might be something like BDL-BWI-MCI-LAX.
Swerving back on topic... it seems to me that the number of runways sets the maximum possible arrival or departure rate, then the number of arrival/departure corridors is the next factor. An airport like KDEN with no other major airports nearby has a lot more available arrive/depart options, compared to LGA/EWR/JFK or DCA/IAD/BWI or ORD/MDW/MKE...
if technology like ADS-B will really allow airplanes to get as close to each other in IMC as they do in VMC, then we can get more airplanes in the same space in the terminal area. Even if we can get them somewhat closer, that's an improvement.
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.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 23,091
- Display Name
Display name:
Bob Noel
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).
chucky
Line Up and Wait
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.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Bwahahahahaha.
Wasn't I saying that ADS-B Out was a complete waste of time technology-wise, since it's unauthenticated and unencrypted in another thread?
Trust the users is a really bad idea in network design.
ADS-B In however, is an excellent way to get the masses to pay to deliver our weather data.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Centers reducing separation from five miles to three will reduce delays on about the same level that RVSM did.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,930
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
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?
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
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
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,930
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I agree that extra en-route space doesn't help significantly when you don't have room getting in and out, but I was surprised at just how much traffic exists in the flight levels while flying in my friend's Cheyenne at FL200. We had much, much more traffic called out (and visually confirmed) than I ever get in the Aztec or 310. I found it to be a surprisingly busy space. He confirmed that he gets much more traffic up high than he ever got flying the Aztec or Navajo.
Granted, we were below RVSM airspace, but I have also noticed looking out the windows of airliners that I see a lot of other jets pass by, surprisingly close. Given how rarely I see another plane when flying any of the planes I fly, it give sme reason to believe that there might be something to it.
plus RVSM really screwed up high altitude cross country wave soaring
What it also did is basically made a number of jets that are now low-cost obsolete, since the upgrade might be barely worth more than the plane. Of course, the fuel burn on most of those jets (Lear 24s come to mind) by itself is enough to make them pretty undesirable.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Damn little. With enroute spacing requirements of twenty or thirty miles in trail regardless of altitude, adding six usable flight levels doesn't have that much impact.
chucky
Line Up and Wait
That's what I figured, but I'm glad to let someone who actually knows what they're talking about say it instead.