We need 21st century air traffic control

[Bob Noel]

That's what I figured, but I'm glad to let someone who actually knows what they're talking about say it instead.

The value of RVSM was much more evident in oceanic airspace.

 

[chucky]

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.

And, if I understand things correctly, the miles-in-trail requirements are given to the centers by the relevant approach controls, right? So it boils down to airport capacity.

So, is there an equivalent to ERAM for TRACONs that will let them increase their capacity? Aside from limits associated with a finite amount of pavement, what causes delays in TRACON airspace? I know that people are claiming complex airspace like New York's could benefit from the usage of RNP approaches, but RNP isn't NextGen. NextGen doesn't guarantee that everyone is RNP capable, so you still have to have the old approaches as long as people are flying non-RNP approved aircraft. Rather than GA to equip ADS-B, wouldn't it be better to force us all to equip RNAV systems? These aren't intended as rhetorical questions - I really don't know the answers.

 

[roncachamp]

And, if I understand things correctly, the miles-in-trail requirements are given to the centers by the relevant approach controls, right? So it boils down to airport capacity.

In trail requirements are set by the receiving facility/sector, that could be several centers distant from the relevant approach control. Twenty years ago I was at Chicago Center lining up Kennedy arrivals. I had to give the next ZAU sector X miles in trail, he had to give Cleveland center Y miles, that controller had to give...

The weak links in the chain are at the ends, airport/runway capacity.

So, is there an equivalent to ERAM for TRACONs that will let them increase their capacity? Aside from limits associated with a finite amount of pavement, what causes delays in TRACON airspace? I know that people are claiming complex airspace like New York's could benefit from the usage of RNP approaches, but RNP isn't NextGen. NextGen doesn't guarantee that everyone is RNP capable, so you still have to have the old approaches as long as people are flying non-RNP approved aircraft. Rather than GA to equip ADS-B, wouldn't it be better to force us all to equip RNAV systems? These aren't intended as rhetorical questions - I really don't know the answers.

Ultimately, there are only two things you can do to increase airport capacity; increase the concrete available or decrease the separation required. I don't think new software is the answer. Basic radar separation in terminal areas is three miles, but wake turbulence requirements can double that. Absent some engineering breakthrough that reduces or eliminates the wake I don't think we'll be running aircraft any tighter.

 

[COFlyBoy]

I thought the primary benefit of ERAM that the airlines were looking for was fuel efficiency not necessarily more capacity at the airports. No matter how accurately you track and how tightly you space airplanes in flight, you will not increase the number that can land on a particular runway in one day.

The 4D control supposedly allows the airlines to fly their planes using the most optimal climb and descent profiles, direct routings, and most efficient cruise settings.

 

[denverpilot]

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 believe the only flighpaths that have significantly benefited are the "NAT Tracks" over the North Atlantic.