Airways, Radar, and RNAV
Stan Prevost
What is the purpose of not allowing off-airway routing where there is no
radar coverage? What does radar coverage have to do with VOR airways? For
a GPS RNAV aircraft, what good do the VORs do? As I understand the (Part
91) rules, if I have approach certified GPS (even enroute certified), I am
not required to even have VOR receivers. If I don't have to have VOR
receivers, why must I fly VOR routes?
Stan Prevost
Steven P. McNicoll
"Stan Prevost" <spre...@dontspam.hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:spju3ia...@corp.supernews.com...
Aircraft separation.
Larry Fransson
>
> Hi, y'all -
>
> What is the purpose of not allowing off-airway routing where there is no
> radar coverage? What does radar coverage have to do with VOR airways?
Since the job of an air traffic controller is to keep airplanes from
colliding with each other, there must be a way to identify where each
aircraft is. With radar, it's easy. Without radar, it's not as easy.
By keeping you on an airway, the controller can estimate your position
along the airway based on your filed true airspeed. You keep the
controller up to date on your actual position by giving periodic
position reports. If you're flying willy nilly through random areas of
an area without radar coverage, the controller has no really good way to
know where you are. That would necessitate clearing large blocks of
airspace for you, which isn't terribly efficient if more than a few
aircraft are to traverse a given area at any given time.
Larry Fransson
Pilots are just plane people with a different air about them.
Justin Maas
that you're refering to phase two of the GPS inclusion - it's been
completed...
Justin Maas
Justin Maas
asking -- pulled a thirteen hour shift today; can't think very well..
Justin Maas
Stan Prevost
Justin Maas <jus...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_uom5.2720$dG.1...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Stan Prevost
Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:spk4uh...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Stan Prevost" <spre...@dontspam.hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> news:spju3ia...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > radar coverage? What does radar coverage have to do with VOR airways?
> > a GPS RNAV aircraft, what good do the VORs do? As I understand the
(Part
> > 91) rules, if I have approach certified GPS (even enroute certified), I
> am
> > receivers, why must I fly VOR routes?
> >
>
>
>
That's a little too concise for me to learn much from, but, OK, so that's
what the radar provides. But why is it different on a VOR airway versus a
direct route not published as an airway?
It is allowable to fly on a VOR airway outside radar coverage using non-VOR
RNAV equipment, but not an unpublished route outside radar coverage using
non-VOR RNAV equipment. Why? Seems like there is no radar-based separation
in either case.
Stan Prevost
Larry Fransson <lfra...@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:399A215C...@uswest.net...
> Stan Prevost wrote:
> >
>
> Since the job of an air traffic controller is to keep airplanes from
> colliding with each other, there must be a way to identify where each
> aircraft is. With radar, it's easy. Without radar, it's not as easy.
> By keeping you on an airway, the controller can estimate your position
> along the airway based on your filed true airspeed. You keep the
> controller up to date on your actual position by giving periodic
> position reports. If you're flying willy nilly through random areas of
> an area without radar coverage, the controller has no really good way to
> know where you are. That would necessitate clearing large blocks of
> airspace for you, which isn't terribly efficient if more than a few
> aircraft are to traverse a given area at any given time.
>
Yes, that's clear enough, but I didn't say flying around randomly "willy
nilly", just along a direct unpublished route. The reg (FAR 91.181(b)) says
to stay on the line directly between the fixes defining the route. What is
it about a line betwen fixes called an airway that differentiates it from
another line between fixes not called an airway such that radar coverage is
not required for the former but is required for the latter?
Mike Rapoport
Mike
MU-2
Stan Prevost wrote in message ...
Stan
points except the defining VORs. Same as a direct route between two VORs
where there is not a published airway. Report crossing the VORs. As for
position reporting other than over mandatory reporting points, saying "30
miles from BML on V104" doesn't seem any different from "30 miles from BML
on 240 radial" (made up numbers).
Not trying to be argumentative, just a low-timer trying to understand.
Stan
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:399a9...@news.greatbasin.net...
> Because position reporting is facilitated if you are on an airway.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> Stan Prevost wrote in message ...
> >
Newps
Stan Prevost wrote:
>
> Hi, y'all -
>
> What does radar coverage have to do with VOR airways?
Nothing.
For
> a GPS RNAV aircraft, what good do the VORs do?
No good.
As I understand the (Part
> 91) rules, if I have approach certified GPS (even enroute certified), I am
> not required to even have VOR receivers.
That's correct.
If I don't have to have VOR
> receivers, why must I fly VOR routes?
With certain exceptions if you are below radar coverage you have to be
on a defined route. Since the VOR's/intersections are in your GPS
database you can just fudge the system and fly the airways that way.
Newps
>
> That's a little too concise for me to learn much from, but, OK, so that's
> what the radar provides. But why is it different on a VOR airway versus a
> direct route not published as an airway?
It isn't, the FAA is just so far behind the power curve on this one you
have to wait until they catch up. ZLC uses nonradar direct out here on
a regular basis, don't know what their rationale is, however.
>
> It is allowable to fly on a VOR airway outside radar coverage using non-VOR
> RNAV equipment, but not an unpublished route outside radar coverage using
> non-VOR RNAV equipment. Why? Seems like there is no radar-based separation
> in either case.
There isn't, the FAA just has their head up and locked. I can separate
you from anybody else as long as you can tell me where you are. The VOR
airway makes that easy as I only need DME. A direct routing, off
airway, means you have to throw in another dimension. But with GPS
that's easy.
Newps
Stan wrote:
>
> How, Mike? A lot of airways (most?) don't have any mandatory reporting
> points except the defining VORs. Same as a direct route between two VORs
> where there is not a published airway. Report crossing the VORs. As for
> position reporting other than over mandatory reporting points, saying "30
> miles from BML on V104" doesn't seem any different from "30 miles from BML
> on 240 radial" (made up numbers).
Because the book says that's legal. If I ask your DME on an airway and
you say 30 and the next guy at the same altitude says 33(35 in the
center) then you are separated
Newps
> By keeping you on an airway, the controller can estimate your position
> along the airway based on your filed true airspeed.
That's possible but that's not how it's done.
You keep the
> controller up to date on your actual position by giving periodic
> position reports.
That's how it's done.
Newps
> >
>
> Yes, that's clear enough, but I didn't say flying around randomly "willy
> nilly", just along a direct unpublished route. The reg (FAR 91.181(b)) says
> to stay on the line directly between the fixes defining the route. What is
> it about a line betwen fixes called an airway that differentiates it from
> another line between fixes not called an airway such that radar coverage is
> not required for the former but is required for the latter?
Nothing, the FAA is just behind the times.
Mike Rapoport
along that line. If you are at some point in space they have to figure out
where that point is and then project your track forward in time. They would
have to do this for every aircraft in their sector. It could be done but
they doesn't seem interested.
Mike
MU-2
Stan wrote in message ...
>How, Mike? A lot of airways (most?) don't have any mandatory reporting
>points except the defining VORs. Same as a direct route between two VORs
>where there is not a published airway. Report crossing the VORs. As for
>position reporting other than over mandatory reporting points, saying "30
>miles from BML on V104" doesn't seem any different from "30 miles from BML
>on 240 radial" (made up numbers).
>
>Not trying to be argumentative, just a low-timer trying to understand.
>
>Stan
>
>
>"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:399a9...@news.greatbasin.net...
>> Because position reporting is facilitated if you are on an airway.
>>
>> Mike
>> MU-2
>>
>>
>> Stan Prevost wrote in message ...
>> >
James Wilkinson
several Centers, I long ago learned the importance of accurate and timely
position reports. And having conducted practical tests for the FAA for many
years, I realize this is a skill instrument pilots are quickly losing,
especially in those "high density" areas in this country that have near 100%
radar coverage. It seems we came to the "no radar, no see" mentality long
ago. Pity. An airplane doesn't know if a radar "sees" it or not. Pilots
shouldn't care, either. It's YOUR responsibility, Pilot, to know where you
are, not a controllers job to remind you.
--Jim Wilkinson, ASI-Ops, FAA
"Newps" <scn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:399AB34F...@home.com...
James Wilkinson
airways are defined and have clear standards. A controller knows - and is
regularly tested on - the details: the obstructions, the idiosyncracies.
OTOH, a straight line between 2 VORs without an associated airway might have
obstructions or communication problems unknown to anyone. If YOU happen to
be flying an aircraft and meet one of those, it might ruin your whole day.
It might not be such a big deal in, say, Kansas or Oklahoma, but imagine
flying a stright line between 2 VORs in the Rocky Mountains somewhere.
Knowing the "details" there would be important to both you and the
controller trying to separate your aircraft from another
--Jim Wilkinson, FAA
"Newps" <scn...@home.com> wrote in message
news:399AB37E...@home.com...
Stan
thread has suggested that they do or that any pilot should depend on radar
for knowing where they are. Position reporting (nonradar environment) and
radar (radar environment) have been discussed as means for the *controllers*
to know where the planes are so that separation can be provided.
Stan
"James Wilkinson" <james.m....@faa.gov> wrote in message
news:Jyym5.195$z4....@news.ou.edu...
> Having done much flying in a non-radar environment and spending much time
in
> several Centers, I long ago learned the importance of accurate and timely
> position reports. And having conducted practical tests for the FAA for
many
> years, I realize this is a skill instrument pilots are quickly losing,
> especially in those "high density" areas in this country that have near
100%
> radar coverage. It seems we came to the "no radar, no see" mentality long
> ago. Pity. An airplane doesn't know if a radar "sees" it or not. Pilots
> shouldn't care, either. It's YOUR responsibility, Pilot, to know where you
> are, not a controllers job to remind you.
>
> --Jim Wilkinson, ASI-Ops, FAA
>
> "Newps" <scn...@home.com> wrote in message
Stan
applies equally to both published and unpublished routes between published
fixes. In either case you are proceeding along a defined line, the line
drawn straight between the fixes. As for the second sentence, the plane
does not just suddenly appear at some arbitrary point in space, it would be
along a defined line between two fixes known to the controller because it
would be part of the clearance. The controller will know from the flight
plan or from asking the pilot what the speed is, and will know the time at
which the plane crossed the first fix defining the line. So if the plane is
flying a direct unpublished route between ABC and DEF VORs, and is flying
160 kts, and crossed ABC 15 minutes ago, the controller can estimate that
the plane is 40 nm from ABC on the line between ABC and DEF. That is no
different whether the line between fixes has been given a name like V123 or
not. As for the third sentence, that applies to every aircraft not in radar
coverage even if they are on airways.
And I can believe the last sentence. :-)
Stan
"Mike Rapoport" <rapo...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:399ab...@news.greatbasin.net...
Norm Melick
> As I understand the (Part 91) rules, if I have approach certified GPS
> (even enroute certified), I am not required to even have VOR
> receivers.
Well, not exactly. You have to be able to switch to an alternate
navigation system if the GPS RAIM light illuminates, and if you are
required to file an alternate airport, the alternate airport must
have something other than a GPS approach.
Stan
use the OROCA (or MORA)? That would take care of the obstructions, but
maybe not the communications (but most likely would since it is higher than
any of the other routes in the area).
Stan
"James Wilkinson" <james.m....@faa.gov> wrote in message
news:eEym5.196$z4....@news.ou.edu...
> Actually, there are important, significant differences. The routes called
> airways are defined and have clear standards. A controller knows - and is
> regularly tested on - the details: the obstructions, the idiosyncracies.
> OTOH, a straight line between 2 VORs without an associated airway might
have
> obstructions or communication problems unknown to anyone. If YOU happen to
> be flying an aircraft and meet one of those, it might ruin your whole day.
> It might not be such a big deal in, say, Kansas or Oklahoma, but imagine
> flying a stright line between 2 VORs in the Rocky Mountains somewhere.
> Knowing the "details" there would be important to both you and the
> controller trying to separate your aircraft from another
>
> --Jim Wilkinson, FAA
>
> "Newps" <scn...@home.com> wrote in message
Mike Rapoport
talking about reporting a certain radial and distance (or coordinates) and
not necessarily going direct from one navaid to another. I was thinking
about a VOR based RNAV system.
The only problem with the direct between VORs with no airway scenario is
that there is no MRA published for either communications or navigation.
Mike
MU-2
Ron Rosenfeld
>Well, sorry, I still don't get it.
Stan,
Don't forget that not all VOR radials are checked for accuracy. Usually,
only the radials defining various routes are checked. So what you see in
the cockpit may not truly be defining your point in space.
Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)
Warren Jones
>
> What is the purpose of not allowing off-airway routing where there is no
> radar coverage?
Stan,
The purpose is to allow ATC to provide you with non-radar separation in a
non-radar environment as per the FAAO 7110.65M. ATC can't see you, yet they
are providing separation between you and all the other IFR's out there which
they also can't see. This is done via defined nav routes, pilot fix reports
and a lot of abstract math on the part of ATC. Once apon a time, back when
FAA was still hiring controllers, ATC candidates were screened at Oklahoma
City based on their ability to learn and apply basic non-radar ATC. 50 to
60% of every class of candidates were washed out because they couldn't grasp
non-radar concepts. Another 20% washed out of the Center option once they
reached their field facility because they couldn't apply non-radar in the
various local training phases.
In a non-radar environment, ATC has to use cumbersome non-radar rules to
provide separation. These rules tell ATC to separate aircraft by "time, fix
or altitude." Standard FAA non-radar separation is ten minutes over a
common fix, twenty miles reference a common fix, or vertical. These rules
apply to both the terminal and the enroute environments. The separation
requirements are generous (read- a pain in the @ss for ATC) to account for
the fact that the airways extend four miles on either side of the center
line, for navaid slant range distance reception, to clear holding pattern
protected airspace, etc) There are a host of conditions, exceptions and
caveats (ex- 22kt rule, 44kt rule, down in front/up in back rule, degree
divergence crossing the common fix, et al.) that apply to reduce approved
FAA non-radar separation, but they all involve aircraft cleared via a
defined route between navaids. If you are on point to point random
navigation, your next fix may be hundreds of miles away. There is no way
for the ATCS working the sector you are traversing to be able to tell
precisely where (*exactly*, and non-radar is an exact science) you are
penetrating his airspace. The only way he can separate you from his
conflicting traffic is to pin you down to either an airway through his
sector, a radial of a navaid (which hasn't been flight checked and may not
provide for navaid reception etc) or by changing your altitude to a
non-conflicted level (not always an option in busy facilities).
These rules were written for ATC IFR separation, and they are inconvenient
for pilot and controller alike. For further reference see the FAAO
7110.65M, Chapter 6. Many (most?) controllers fudge the daylights out of
these rules, because a miss is as good as a mile to a lot of folks, the
rules are arcane and non-intuitive, and it is a big sky up there.
Chip, ZTL
Warren Jones
>
> Larry Fransson <lfra...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> news:399A215C...@uswest.net...
> > Stan Prevost wrote:
it from
> another line between fixes not called an airway such that radar coverage
is
> not required for the former but is required for the latter?
>
>
>
reception limitations on points along the route. ATC sectors are also based
on navaids and airways (as well as traffic flows etc.). Aircraft
penetrating ATC sectors on an airway are easy for ATC to separate from other
aircraft operating on the same route structure.
ATC can look at the chart and say "OK, N123 will definitely be IFR at 6000
on this exact route, Victor 3. Now all I have to do is find out where on
this route he'll be at 1330Z and I'll be able to tell if he will hit N456,
also at 6000, who crosses out with him, estimating Podunk VOR at 1330Z on
Victor 56. I need twenty miles, ten minutes, altitude, or degree divergence
at Podunk... Lets see, N123 is tooling along at 120, that's 2 miles a
minute...He reported Big Town VOR at 1315Z...That puts him at Podunk
estimated at 1336Z. The degree divergence says I need 9 miles at Podunk
between Victor 3 and Victor 56. I've got N789 oposite direction up Victor 3
at 7000. I'll use position reports to establish that N789 and N123 are
passed each other and then I'll clear N123 to cross 9 miles north of Podunk
at and maintain 7000. That'll keep him clear of N456 at Podunk..."
Aircraft using point to point navagation capabilities present an
insurmountable lateral/longitudinal separation problem for ATC.
" OK, N123 is off of KY93, GPS direct VRB. VRB is Vero Beach Florida, but
where in the heck is KY93?
He'll probabaly be entering my airspace somewhere up here, and exiting
somewhere down
here. Hmmm... All I really know is that he'll be at 6000, which is exactly
the altitude that N456 has tied up westbound over Podunk. I'll call those
idiots up at Midwest Center and tell them to either put him on Victor 3 or
assign him a Podunk radial so I can find him...I can't use 7000 because he
may hit N789 going up Victor 3, and 5000 will plow him into Granite
Ridge..."
Chip,
ZTL
Newps
Stan wrote:
>
> Well, sorry, I still don't get it. I understand your first sentence, but it
> applies equally to both published and unpublished routes between published
> fixes. In either case you are proceeding along a defined line, the line
> drawn straight between the fixes. As for the second sentence, the plane
> does not just suddenly appear at some arbitrary point in space, it would be
> along a defined line between two fixes known to the controller because it
> would be part of the clearance.
The reason it works is because we force you to go over VOR's. If we
didn't you'd probably want to go where ever was convenient for you. We
can't have that now, can we? As long as we are forcing you over certain
limited points, and there are alot of these points already plotted, the
VOR's, the FAA see's no need to change its ways. Until y'all start
bitching louder.
Newps
James Wilkinson wrote:
>
> Actually, there are important, significant differences. The routes called
> airways are defined and have clear standards. A controller knows - and is
> regularly tested on - the details
Good one. My last test was my first one, 7 1/2 years ago when I moved
to this facility.
: the obstructions, the idiosyncracies.
> OTOH, a straight line between 2 VORs without an associated airway might have
> obstructions or communication problems unknown to anyone.
Doesn't matter, random direct routes have to be above my MVA which
eliminates any terrain problems.
Jack
> What is the purpose of not allowing off-airway routing where there is no
> radar coverage?
Then "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> Aircraft separation.
So "I" write:
Not good enough.
There is no logical difference in the two forms of navigation as they relate
to aircraft separation. The requirement is separation, but the
inadequacy is
not in the form of navigation, it is in the failure of the FAA to grow the
ATC "system" in a timely manner.
None of the enhancements in navigation methods have been unforeseen, nor have
they occurred overnight: the same goes for the growth of traffic. The
DOT has
simply failed in its responsibilities by dragging its heels, for decades not
years, in making the enhancements that are needed. Whether in terms of RADAR,
computers, area navigation, conventional nav aids, safety of surface
movements, or airport signage and markings, the .gov has done the kind
of job
for which you would have fired your lawn service after the first two weeks.
Do these failures of our Air Transportation System overshadow its successes?
Certainly not. We are still the beneficiaries (and the donors) of the safest,
most successful (and most inclusive) system on the planet. But it is not
adequate to our present needs, and not nearly able to handle our projected
growth. There are many shortcomings in our aviation infrastructure, from
concrete to computers, and the FAA has a big piece of all of them.
The financial aspect of the solution has been in place for decades and has
been consistently subverted in order to redirect funding from aviation to
social and other budget priorities, even in direct contradiction to the
prohibitions against such redirection contained within the original
legislation.
And that is your fault, and mine.
Another solution to the problem is to privatize the system. The airlines will
continue to benefit disproportionately when this happens. But the record of
government agencies does not encourage us to think that the problems are
likely to be dealt with effectively in any other way.
If you don't like privatization, then the answer is to put some political
and economic pressure at every point, on every level of the system, to make
the changes that are needed. Otherwise the number of private aircraft sitting
in the weeds at your local airport is going to increase exponentially,
in the
same inverse relationship we generally see between regulation and efficiency.
-----------------
Larry Fransson wrote:
> ...there must be a way to identify where each aircraft is.
> By keeping you on an airway, the controller can estimate
> your position along the airway based on your filed true
> airspeed.
And there is no logical difference when the flight is off airways. I can tell
the controller where I am, periodically, just as well when I am off airways.
Just as a track on the scope is a track on the scope, a position report
is a
position report.
The whole idea of area Nav was to get more airplanes into the airspace safely
and efficiently. The problem is in the inadequacy of the system to provide
RADAR and radio coverage, or to provide the controller with some alternate
means to deal with all forms of nav. The market made its commitment, but the
FAA has failed to uphold its end of the bargain.
> You keep the controller up to date on your actual
> position by giving periodic position reports (on airways).
The only reason the system works with flight on airways is because of RADAR
coverage. To claim that the difference between on- or off-airways is the
unsuitability of position reporting for area nav is simply "disinformation",
and typical .gov obfuscation. Take away RADAR from on-airway nav and the
national system would die within minutes. We could not possibly maintain the
volume of traffic we have on-airways without RADAR and radio coverage,
no matter what use we make of position reporting.
-----------------------------------
And now "Stan Prevost" writes:
> Why is it different on a VOR airway versus a direct route not published
> as an airway?
> It is allowable to fly on a VOR airway outside radar coverage using
> non-VOR RNAV equipment, but not an unpublished route outside radar
> coverage using non-VOR RNAV equipment.
> Seems like there is no radar-based separation in either case.
-----------------------------------
Stan is the man.
Controllers do not have any way to track large numbers of aircraft in
real time except by RADAR. Ground-based RADAR and direct VHF/UHF comm.
is the only way at present in which the system can work.
The exclusion of off airways, non-RADAR environment routing is for the
purpose of reducing the burden on the system, and slowing the rate of
investment required. There is no logical justification for it. It is
merely an expedient self-defense measure typical of unresponsive,
unconstructive, and ultimately obstructionist, organizational thinking.
If you want to improve the National Airspace System (or schools, or
roads) you have got to pay more attention to politics. If you don't like
politics (what decent human being does?) and think that justifies your
non-involvement, then fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a very
bumpy night.
Jack
MAIL: < mailto:bar...@earthlink.net >
HOME: < http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/index.html >
Stan
published fixes using GPS, which was my specific concern.
Stan
"Ron Rosenfeld" <ronros...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:ncjlps0b4qip552gj...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 11:06:11 -0500, " Stan" <spre...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> >Well, sorry, I still don't get it.
>
Tarver Engineering
"Jack" <bar...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:399AD933...@earthlink.net...
> "Stan Prevost" wrote:
>
> > What is the purpose of not allowing off-airway routing where there is no
> > radar coverage?
>
>
> Then "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> > Aircraft separation.
>
>
> So "I" write:
>
> Not good enough.
FAA wants their own constellation of satellites; nothing else matters to
management.
John
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Stan
> Sorry, I guess I didn't understand your question. I thought you were
> talking about reporting a certain radial and distance (or coordinates) and
> not necessarily going direct from one navaid to another. I was thinking
> about a VOR based RNAV system.
>
> The only problem with the direct between VORs with no airway scenario is
> that there is no MRA published for either communications or navigation.
>
True, but the OROCA (MORA) ought to handle that, wouldn't you think?
Stan
Stan
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:399AC021...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Stan Prevost wrote:
>
> > As I understand the (Part 91) rules, if I have approach certified GPS
> > (even enroute certified), I am not required to even have VOR
> > receivers.
>
> Well, not exactly. You have to be able to switch to an alternate
> navigation system if the GPS RAIM light illuminates,
I am only required to have navigation equipment appropriate for the ground
facilities to be used. Forgetting "ground equipment" vs "space equipment",
my nav equipment can be my GPS and my alternate can be my compass (and DG)
and clock. So when I switch to alternate navigation, I switch to dead
reckoning (or ded reckoning, don't get started).
That probably won't fly if I am cleared along VOR-based airways, though.
> and if you are
> required to file an alternate airport, the alternate airport must
> have something other than a GPS approach.
Including no approach with VMC.
Stan
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Because the book says that's legal. If I ask your DME on an airway and
> you say 30 and the next guy at the same altitude says 33(35 in the
> center) then you are separated
>
Wrong. Basic longitudinal separation using DME is 20 miles, and there is no
distinction between terminal and center. It can be reduced in various
situations; 44 knot rule, 22 knot rule, climbing/descending aircraft, but
not down to 3 miles.
Jack
> FAA wants their own constellation of satellites; nothing else matters to
> management.
That may be what it takes.
Given the false starts of the past, thouhgh, I hold out little hope that it
will be anything but a mess -- a jury rigging of monstrous proportions, which
results in a crazy-quilt of regulations, and airspace and operating
restrictions, for all users -- ultimately costing hundreds of billions more
than it should.
But hey, I'm a little cynical in my old age. Maybe everything will be
different, by-and-by. :[
--
Stan
complexity of the controllers' job in dealing with the situation. However,
it appears to stem largely from inadequate computer support. For example,
the computers do not have all published facilities and fixes, and therefore
cannot provide support such as painting a course line on the screen for a
given target when it is hooked or otherwise requested. Also, the computers
do not seem to be able to access the flight plan or controller input for
speeds or position reports. Or to use such data to predict conflicts.
Everything you described the controller has to do required (1) the
controller to have certain data, and (2) use of the data in an algorithm to
predict something, like crossing paths or violation of some criterion.
Given the same data, the computers could execute the same algorithms to make
the same predictions, and when a situation requires judgement could present
a reduced problem to the controller for decision and action.
So it seems that there are not essential, logical differences between radar
coverage and non-radar coverage, it is that one currently has more
assistance from automation, and becomes more of a "local" problem because
the size of the problem is reduced by restricting the choices and has
automated data input.
I don't mean to oversimplify the problem, and I certainly don't have your
experience in the system. It just looks like it could (and should) be
improved.
Stan
"Warren Jones" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fCAm5.7816$Cc2.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Stan Prevost" <spre...@dontspam.hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> news:spka58...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Larry Fransson <lfra...@uswest.net> wrote in message
> > news:399A215C...@uswest.net...
Jack
> I don't believe that anyone...has suggested...that any pilot should depend on
> radar
> for knowing where they are.
> Position reporting (nonradar environment) and radar (radar environment) have
> been discussed as means for the *controllers* to know where the planes are so
> that separation can be provided.
I admire your ability to stay, and keep the thread, focused on the real issue,
Stan.
Funny how that "drift" keeps wanting to take hold. :)
Jack
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 11:06:11 -0500, " Stan" <spre...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> >Well, sorry, I still don't get it.
>
> Stan,
>
> Don't forget that not all VOR radials are checked for accuracy. Usually,
> only the radials defining various routes are checked. So what you see in
> the cockpit may not truly be defining your point in space.
Doesn't matter. This thread involves area nav, which with approved systems
and procedures, is certified for virtually all those "other points in
space".
Newps
> >
> Stan, one thing is that airways are based on navaids that are within the VOR
> reception limitations on points along the route. ATC sectors are also based
> on navaids and airways (as well as traffic flows etc.). Aircraft
> penetrating ATC sectors on an airway are easy for ATC to separate from other
> aircraft operating on the same route structure.
>
> ATC can look at the chart and say "OK, N123 will definitely be IFR at 6000
> on this exact route, Victor 3. Now all I have to do is find out where on
> this route he'll be at 1330Z and I'll be able to tell if he will hit N456,
> also at 6000, who crosses out with him, estimating Podunk VOR at 1330Z on
> Victor 56. I need twenty miles, ten minutes, altitude, or degree divergence
> at Podunk... Lets see, N123 is tooling along at 120, that's 2 miles a
> minute...He reported Big Town VOR at 1315Z...That puts him at Podunk
> estimated at 1336Z. The degree divergence says I need 9 miles at Podunk
> between Victor 3 and Victor 56. I've got N789 oposite direction up Victor 3
> at 7000. I'll use position reports to establish that N789 and N123 are
> passed each other and then I'll clear N123 to cross 9 miles north of Podunk
> at and maintain 7000. That'll keep him clear of N456 at Podunk..."
>
And now you know why this isn't done. That's way too much work for two
guys who may not even be traffic for each other.
Newps
Stan wrote:
>
> Chip, thanks for your extensive replies. You certainly illustrate the
> complexity of the controllers' job in dealing with the situation. However,
> it appears to stem largely from inadequate computer support. For example,
> the computers do not have all published facilities and fixes, and therefore
> cannot provide support such as painting a course line on the screen for a
> given target when it is hooked or otherwise requested. Also, the computers
> do not seem to be able to access the flight plan or controller input for
> speeds or position reports. Or to use such data to predict conflicts.
> Everything you described the controller has to do required (1) the
> controller to have certain data, and (2) use of the data in an algorithm to
> predict something, like crossing paths or violation of some criterion.
> Given the same data, the computers could execute the same algorithms to make
> the same predictions, and when a situation requires judgement could present
> a reduced problem to the controller for decision and action.
And I'm going to say unable. You're asking me to separate two guys
based on a guess and a mathematical line on the scope. If you'd just
fly the damn VOR radial this wouldn't be a problem. Otherwise I'll just
separate you based on altitude. Until we get satellite position
reporting it just ain't gonna work.
Newps
>
> These rules were written for ATC IFR separation, and they are inconvenient
> for pilot and controller alike. For further reference see the FAAO
> 7110.65M, Chapter 6. Many (most?) controllers fudge the daylights out of
> these rules, because a miss is as good as a mile to a lot of folks, the
> rules are arcane and non-intuitive, and it is a big sky up there.
If we lose radar in the TRACON, and for some reason lose/can't use the
center radar presentation which is our backup, it will become clear
rather quickly that VFR will be the way to go.
Tarver Engineering
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > FAA wants their own constellation of satellites; nothing else matters to
> > management.
>
> That may be what it takes.
That is not what it takes; the desire for satellites has become a major road
block to modernization. The Airlines are unlikely to allow FAA to blackmail
them into paying for a complex system well in excess of what FAA has already
shown themselves incapable of completing on the ground.
> Given the false starts of the past, thouhgh, I hold out little hope that
it
> will be anything but a mess -- a jury rigging of monstrous proportions,
which
> results in a crazy-quilt of regulations, and airspace and operating
> restrictions, for all users -- ultimately costing hundreds of billions
more
> than it should.
I believe that VHF DataLink could already have made deviations from the
airways commonplace. For the same price we have already sunk into WAAS we
could have illuminated the entire airways system with VDL. There is no
reason why weather planners inside ATC should not be using NOAH's immages to
manage traffic flow; instead there is a conference call twice a day. This
is 50's style technololy driving a system to manage the most modern robots
on earth.
> But hey, I'm a little cynical in my old age. Maybe everything will be
> different, by-and-by. :[
Privatization is where we are headed, right, or wrong. The failure in
performance has left the system little choice, but to change management of
the system.
Jack
> "Stan Prevost" wrote
> > What is the purpose of not allowing off-airway routing where there is no
> > radar coverage?
> The purpose is to allow ATC to provide you with non-radar separation in a
> non-radar environment as per the FAAO 7110.65M. ATC can't see you, yet they
> are providing separation...via defined nav routes, pilot fix reports
> and a lot of abstract math on the part of ATC. Once apon a time, back when
> FAA was still hiring controllers, ATC candidates were screened at Oklahoma
> City based on their ability to learn and apply basic non-radar ATC. 50 to
> 60% of every class of candidates were washed out because they couldn't grasp
> non-radar concepts. Another 20% washed out of the Center option once they
> reached their field facility because they couldn't apply non-radar in the
> various local training phases.
Actually, Warren, we could do all this, even with
three-dimensionally-challenged
clerks.
The computers, Warren, where are the computers?
------------------
> In a non-radar environment...cumbersome non-radar rules...
> tell ATC to separate aircraft by "time, fix or altitude."
> These rules were written for ATC IFR separation, and they are inconvenient
> for pilot and controller alike. For further reference see the FAAO
> 7110.65M, Chapter 6.
> Many (most?) controllers fudge the daylights out of these rules,
> because a miss is as good as a mile to a lot of folks, the
> rules are arcane and non-intuitive, and it is a big sky up there.
And the computers?
--------------------
Do not take these criticism personally, Warren, as I would hate to have anyone
hold me responsible for the stupidity of our management: so --
Is this the FAA that is going to make things better?
I'm speaking simply as a voter here, but --
The Airspace system is twenty years behind where it should be, the market
for aviation services continues to expand, and technical development is not
going to magically solve political and managerial inadequacies.
What are your suggestions, coming from a very different perspective than the
average poster here?
Jack
> Aircraft using point to point navagation capabilities present an
> insurmountable lateral/longitudinal separation problem for ATC.
Of course, and why is that?
Is this a new problem, an unforeseen challenge, a problem outside our technical
capability or economic reach?
No, No, No, and No!
It is something that has been the conversational dish at aviation get-togethers
for 35 years that I know of.
What do you think it will take to change it?
--
Jack
> Stan wrote:
> >
> > Well, sorry, I still don't get it. I understand your first sentence, but it
> > applies equally to both published and unpublished routes between published
> > fixes. In either case you are proceeding along a defined line, the line
> > drawn straight between the fixes. As for the second sentence, the plane
> > does not just suddenly appear at some arbitrary point in space, it would be
> > along a defined line between two fixes known to the controller because it
> > would be part of the clearance.
Stay with us here, Stan, you were doin' real good.
It's not a "How" Q., Stan, it's a "Why" Q., as Newps is wise enough to remind us:
> The reason it works is because we force you to go over VOR's. If we
> didn't you'd probably want to go where ever was convenient for you. We
> can't have that now, can we? As long as we are forcing you over certain
> limited points, and there are alot of these points already plotted, the
> VOR's, the FAA see's no need to change its ways. Until y'all start
> bitching louder.
-----------------
How much more traffic can those "certain limited points" stand?
-----------------
Maybe it's not the "Tombstone" mentality of the FAA that has been the problem all
along.
Maybe it's us.
-------------
"Until y'all start bitching louder",
Jack
> Chip, thanks for your extensive replies. You certainly illustrate the
> complexity of the controllers' job in dealing with the situation. However,
> it appears to stem largely from inadequate computer support.
Yet again, Stan has nailed it!
> Given the same data, the computers could execute the same algorithms to make
> the same predictions, and when a situation requires judgement could present
> a reduced problem to the controller for decision and action.
Right on!
> ...there are not essential, logical differences between radar
> coverage and non-radar coverage, it is that one currently has more
> assistance from automation, and becomes more of a "local" problem because
> the size of the problem is reduced by restricting the choices....
YES!!!
> I don't mean to oversimplify....
> ...the problem...looks like it could (and should) be improved.
If only we had a few million more Stans....
--
Jack
"Until y'all start bitching louder."
MAIL: < mailto:bar...@earthlink.net >
HOME: < http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/index.html >
Norm Melick
> I am only required to have navigation equipment appropriate for the ground
> facilities to be used. Forgetting "ground equipment" vs "space equipment",
But this is a key point. GPS is not yet approved as the sole means
of navigation. If you are using an approved GPS for navigation,
you must be able to monitor the GPS constellation system, detect an
error in this system, (this is where RAIM comes in), and be
prepared to switch to an alternate navigation system if unable to
resolve the problem, i.e., the VOR system or NDB if you are in an
area that uses a NDB to define an airway.
> my nav equipment can be my GPS and my alternate can be my compass (and DG)
> and clock. So when I switch to alternate navigation, I switch to dead
> reckoning (or ded reckoning, don't get started).
Using a compass, DG and clock is not a viable means to navigate to
an airway, intersection, airport, etc. in IMC conditions. If you
are using an approved GPS system for navigation, you must be able
to use the federal airway system if the GPS system fails.
> That probably won't fly if I am cleared along VOR-based airways, though.
No, probably not.
> > and if you are required to file an alternate airport, the alternate airport must
> > have something other than a GPS approach.
>
> Including no approach with VMC.
Well, I think I know what you meant by this, but to be specific, if
an SIAP is published per part 97 for the designated alternate
airport, the alternate minimums specified in the procedure would
apply, i.e., non-standard alternate minimums. If none are
specified, a ceiling of 600' and visibility of 2 statue miles for a
precision approach, or a ceiling of 800' and visibility of 2 statue
miles for non-precision approaches would apply, i.e., standard
alternate minimums. If the airport you want to designate as an
alternate airport has only a GPS approach, you can not designate
this airport as an alternate airport.
If there is not an SIAP published in part 97 for the alternate
airport, the ceiling and visibility minimums that will allow a
descent from the MEA, approach and landing under basic VFR would
apply.
Norm
Jack
> You're asking me to separate two guys
> based on a guess and a mathematical line on the scope. If you'd just
> fly the damn VOR radial this wouldn't be a problem.
Happy to, Newps, but there just isn't room for all of us to do that, is there?
> Otherwise I'll just separate you based on altitude.
Is Boeing going to build 7x7s with 60,000' capability? I haven't yet heard of it.
Maybe _there_ is a niche for Airbus. :)
> Until we get satellite position reporting it just ain't gonna work.
And the satellite requirement is just the tip of the iceberg, isn't it, Newps?
What will it take in terms of satellites, computers, airspace realignment, on
board equipment, and most of all, investment, to make it happen? I don't think
anybody really has the big picture on it, or, given the history of the agencies
involved, is ever likely to.
----------------------------------
Given the political cycles to which our progress in various realms of national
life is held hostage, the issue is not going to rise above the "clutter" until we
bend metal and break bodies, as usual.
"Until y'all start bitching louder."
Jack
Jack
> ...the desire for satellites has become a major road
> block to modernization. The Airlines are unlikely to allow FAA to blackmail
> them into paying for a complex system well in excess of what FAA has already
> shown themselves incapable of completing on the ground.
I shudder to think of all the ramifications in what I am about to say,
considering you have taken a lot of crap, much of it deserved I think,
but you are definitely on the right track on this issue. :o
> ...VHF DataLink could already have made deviations from the
> airways commonplace. For the same price we have already sunk into WAAS we
> could have illuminated the entire airways system with VDL.
I can hardly wait to give the FAA a few hundred billion more!
> There is no reason why weather planners inside ATC should not be using
> NOAH's immages to manage traffic flow; instead there is a conference call
> twice a day. This is 50's style technololy driving a system to manage the
> most modern robots on earth.
I know, I know, just seeing it in print makes me want to strangle some
faa.gov.scumbag!
> Privatization is where we are headed, right, or wrong. The failure in
> performance has left the system little choice, but to change management of
> the system.
Somber, sobering, and all-to-prophetic.
--
Jack,
"Until y'all start bitching louder."
MAIL: < mailto:bar...@earthlink.net >
HOME: < http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/index.html >
Newps
>
> > Until we get satellite position reporting it just ain't gonna work.
>
> And the satellite requirement is just the tip of the iceberg, isn't it, Newps?
Not really. Your aircraft broadcasts its position to a satellite, just
like a transponder. But this would eliminate gaps in coverage. The
satellite rebroadcasts that info to an earth station and sends me the
info and displays it on a screen, mixed with the transponder info from
radar sites. Bingo, now I can see everybody from the ground up at any
point of my airspace. Now you can all go willy nilly direct and I can
separate very easily.
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX
>Privatization is where we are headed, right, or wrong. The failure in
>performance has left the system little choice, but to change management of
>the system.
Competition is needed for privatization to work. Real
competition, not the fake competition where government
awards monopolistic franchises to the highest or best
connected bidder.
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.COM www.omen.com
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
Author of YMODEM & ZMODEM ZMODEM Consulting: $200/hr
TeleGodzilla BBS: 503-617-1698 FTP: ftp.cs.pdx.edu pub/zmodem
POB 4681 Portland OR 97208 503-614-0430 FAX:503-629-0665
Stan
>
> Using a compass, DG and clock is not a viable means to navigate to
> an airway, intersection, airport, etc. in IMC conditions.
OK, so I still think like a VFR pilot! :-) I don't have my IR yet, so I'm
entitled! :-)
But I'll bet you I can find any navaid, intersection, or airport while
officially using my compass and clock. I just won't show you the
battery-powered backup handheld GPS that I use as "an aid to situational
awareness"! :-)
If you
> are using an approved GPS system for navigation, you must be able
> to use the federal airway system if the GPS system fails.
The FARs don't say that, that I can find, although I'm not sure what the
alternative is since I don't have an inertial system (but I do have my
compass/clock and my situational awareness tool).
Stan
Jack
Sounds good.
Why is this better than ground based radar?
Can it possibly be cheaper?
--
Jack
Stan
>
> >
> > > Until we get satellite position reporting it just ain't gonna work.
> >
> > And the satellite requirement is just the tip of the iceberg, isn't it,
Newps?
>
>
> Not really. Your aircraft broadcasts its position to a satellite, just
> like a transponder. But this would eliminate gaps in coverage. The
> satellite rebroadcasts that info to an earth station and sends me the
> info and displays it on a screen, mixed with the transponder info from
> radar sites. Bingo, now I can see everybody from the ground up at any
> point of my airspace. Now you can all go willy nilly direct and I can
> separate very easily.
Not until you solve the complexity problem described by Chip, which requires
new computers and software on the ground.
That's the largest part of the iceberg, I think. Not necessarily the most
costly, but the hardest.
Steven P. McNicoll
> nilly", just along a direct unpublished route. The reg (FAR 91.181(b))
> says to stay on the line directly between the fixes defining the route.
> What is it about a line betwen fixes called an airway that differentiates
> it from another line between fixes not called an airway such that radar
> coverage is not required for the former but is required for the latter?
>
As long as the fixes are VORs or TACANs or NDBs and you remain within the
usable distance radii; nothing. Radar is required when you exceed those
distances operating off airways.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> That's a little too concise for me to learn much from, but, OK, so that's
> what the radar provides. But why is it different on a VOR airway versus a
> direct route not published as an airway?
>
Actually, radar doesn't provide separation, the controller does. Radar
provides the necessary surveillance. Without radar, surveillance is
provided by position reports on airways or between navaids within normal
altitude distance limitations.
>
> It is allowable to fly on a VOR airway outside radar coverage using
> non-VOR RNAV equipment,
>
Yes.
>
> but not an unpublished route outside radar coverage using
> non-VOR RNAV equipment.
>
It's allowable if your route is between navaids within normal altitude
distance limits.
>
> Why?
>
Why which?
>
> Seems like there is no radar-based separation in either case.
>
Where there is no radar non-radar separation must be used. Non-radar
separation requires an airways route or a route between navaids within
standard altitude distance limits.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Not good enough.
>
Why not? It was a simple question with a simple answer.
Steven P. McNicoll
" Stan" <spre...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:splev7c...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Well, sorry, I still don't get it. I understand your first sentence, but
> it applies equally to both published and unpublished routes between
> published fixes. In either case you are proceeding along a defined line,
> the line drawn straight between the fixes. As for the second sentence,
> the plane does not just suddenly appear at some arbitrary point in space,
> it would be along a defined line between two fixes known to the controller
> the flight plan or from asking the pilot what the speed is, and will know
> the time at which the plane crossed the first fix defining the line.
>
How does the controller determine where that route crosses established
airways or other off-airways direct routes that some other aircraft may
choose to fly?
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Why is this better than ground based radar?
>
Because surveillance would exist everywhere all the way to the ground. You
don't have that with radar even in areas of good radar coverage.
>
> Can it possibly be cheaper?
>
Probably, given that you're using the same system for surveillance that
you're using for navigation. I don't see it replacing radar completely
though. I wouldn't want to have all my eggs in one basket.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
>
> That is not what it takes; the desire for satellites has
> become a major road block to modernization. The Airlines
> are unlikely to allow FAA to blackmail them into paying
> for a complex system well in excess of what FAA has already
> shown themselves incapable of completing on the ground.
>
What on the ground is incomplete?
>
> I believe that VHF DataLink could already have made deviations
> from the airways commonplace.
>
Deviations from the airways are commonplace now, and have been for
quite some time.
>
> There is no reason why weather planners inside ATC should not
> be using NOAH's immages to manage traffic flow; instead there
> is a conference call twice a day.
>
Noah was a fine shipwright, I know nothing about his forecasting skills.
>
> Privatization is where we are headed, right, or wrong. The
> failure in performance has left the system little choice, but
> to change management of the system.
>
What benefit is there to privatization? How could airspace be
privatized to begin with?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jack
> "Jack" wrote:
> > Not good enough.
>
> Why not? It was a simple question with a simple answer.
The answer you gave may not have been good enough for the questioner
(wouldn't have been for me) because it didn't answer the implied
question, or address his need to understand the context.
To say that area nav is not approved in non-radar environments in order
to provide seperation, is like saying that spoons were invented because
breakfast cereal is not as sweet as you'd like it. You've left out the
part about what sugar does.
As you said yourself:
> ...radar doesn't provide separation, the controller does.
> Radar provides the necessary surveillance. Without radar,
> surveillance is provided by position reports....
Position reports can do the same thing in any environment.
Controller workload and the system's need to carry a certain level of
traffic, under arbitrarily restrictive budget and organizational
constraints is the real reason that area navigation is not achieving its
potential.
Area nav does not meet its potential because of congressional reluctance
and management inadequacy, and yet we are supposed to believe that an
even more complex system which the FAA proposes to supplant the original
scheme will have a greater chance of succes?
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our STARs, but in ourselves, that we
are gullible as hell!
An FAA with a clue would not have done away with our VORs and NDBs
before being able to provide a reliable _system_ with which to replace
them. As it is, we still have only the promise of a fully functional
(hugely expensive) system, which may someday work -- unless we can
replace it in mid-stream with something even more un-earthly, and oh-boy
you should see the stuff that we've got on the drawing boards.
We are not amused.
----------------
You later said:
> How does the controller determine where that route crosses established
> airways or other off-airways direct routes that some other aircraft
may
> choose to fly?
Hey! Nobody cares how he does it!
You said he was gonna' be able to do it, and twenty years later you
still can't make it happen!
End of story.
Larry Dighera
the quoted material below to 5 newsgroups:
[Jacks lament of DOT's and FAA's failure to stay abreast of
technological advancements for the ATC system deleted]
PRIVATIZED THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM?
------------------------------------------
>Another solution to the problem is to privatize the system. The airlines will
>continue to benefit disproportionately when this happens.
My experiences with NFCTs leads me to believe that privatizing ATC may
significantly degrade the performance of ATC compared to what the
federal bureaucracy is currently providing. While prodding the FAA to
respond to the needs of the aviation community in a timely manner,
like one might expect from a for-profit business, is a lot like
teaching an elephant to dance, I'm not so sure that providing safety
related services is compatible with the objectives of a corporation
that is primarily interested in maximizing profits.
Do we really want to trust the lives of the flying public (and those
under their flight path) to the lowest bidder? Wasn't it deregulation
of the airline industry that lead to the current chaos of overbooked
flights, over crowded hubs, and the worst spate of delays in the
history of flight? Is it only apparent to me that the corporate
pursuit of the dollar may not be the safest way to provide responsible
Air Traffic Control?
Won't the implementation of the Free Flight program ameliorate some of
the ills of the overloaded, antiquated ATC system? Free Flight is
being tested now. Here are some links:
http://www.faa.gov/freeflight/index.htm
http://ffp1.faa.gov/
http://www.faa.gov/ats/ats-info.htm
Will a privatized ATC system be a viable option when/if Free Flight is
put into operation?
>But the record of government agencies does not encourage us to think that
>the problems are likely to be dealt with effectively in any other way.
Bureaucracy may not be efficient, and it is often ineffective, but
you'll have to agree that the federal Air Traffic Control system's
primary objective is safety not profit. While competition leads to
cost cutting, reduced spending often leads to reduced safety. There
is a fine balance between monopoly and efficiency.
PILOTS CAN BE INSTRUMENTAL IN CAUSING CHANGE
--------------------------------------------
>If you don't like privatization, then the answer is to put some political
>and economic pressure at every point, on every level of the system, to make
>the changes that are needed.
Each one of us has the power to be influential in prodding those
federal bureaucrats who are entrusted with the responsibilities we
have given them (through the process of government) into fulfilling
their responsibilities. All of the decisions made within the FAA and
its offices are a matter of public record. You can access nearly any
document through a Freedom Of Information Act request. Here are some
FOIA links:
>http://www.faa.gov/aad/foia/foia.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia.html
For example, if you want to know the date of the last Annual
Inspection conducted at your home airport, you can request a copy of
those documents, and see if inspections are being made in a timely
manner. You can see the items the inspector found to be in non
compliance, and those, of which you are aware, that s/he failed to
find. The action of the FAA is public, and you have the power to
expose improprieties, derelictions of duty, failures to enforce ... A
phone call to the right FAA person (Phone number available from the
AOPA) can really make a difference. When the bureaucrats realize that
citizens are concerning themselves with the bureaucracy's compliance
with its mandated duties by looking over their shoulders, they will be
more vigilant and diligent in the performance of their duties.
>Otherwise the number of private aircraft sitting >in the weeds at your
>local airport is going to increase exponentially, >in the same inverse
>relationship we generally see between regulation and efficiency.
[snip]
>If you want to improve the National Airspace System (or schools, or
>roads) you have got to pay more attention to politics. If you don't like
>politics (what decent human being does?) and think that justifies your
>non-involvement, then fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a very
>bumpy night.
>Jack
>MAIL: < mailto:bar...@earthlink.net >
>HOME: < http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/index.html >
I agree that it takes an educated, *involved* citizenry to make the
system work. It is evident that big business is pushing its agenda on
the federal bureaucracy every chance it gets.
AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM
-------------------------
It is only through the outcry of informed citizens that we can counter
the inefficient and over priced systems and equipment the corporations
intend to sell to the government at our expense. Such things as 25
ASDE-X ground surveillance radar systems for which FAA Administrator
Jane Garvy intends to squander public funds. More information on this
is available here:
http://www.avweb.com/newswire/news0026b.html
http://www.faa.gov/faa_office/rirp/HTML/ASDE-X/index.htm
Costly ASDE-X is being deployed in response to DOT's outcry for FAA to
take action against the puffed up threat of runway incursion
incidents. (I say puffed up, because since the FAA mandated that
*ALL* RI incidents be reported, the figures reflect an *artificial*
increase. Check the statistics here:
http://www.faa.gov/ats/ato/ato102/stats/pilotdev01.html).
In the ten years that DOT has been badgering FAA to take some action
to reduce RI incidents, FAA has failed to follow the runway surface
marking guidelines outlined in its own Advisory Circular 150-5340.1h
which recommends that the surface markings be outlined in black on
light colored surfaces (AC150-5340.1h is available here:
http://www.faa.gov/arp/pdf/5340-1H.PDF ). It is a travesty that FAA
has chosen to squander public funds on ASDE-X airport surface
surveillance RADAR before assessing the effect of enforcing their own
inexpensive painting guidelines. Below is an article which appeared
in the August 4, 2000 issue of "AOPA ePilot" which shows that FAA has
only now (with egg on its face) finally chosen to implement the safety
recommendations in its Advisory Circular:
"FAA ANNOUNCES STEPS TO IMPROVE RUNWAY SAFETY
The FAA has announced 10 initiatives for reducing runway incursions
that will be implemented immediately. The initiatives were selected
from among some 800 items by a joint industry/FAA working group
(which is cochaired by Dennis Roberts, AOPA vice president of
government and technical affairs) as having the highest potential to
reduce runway incursions, and which could be implemented before the
end of the year. Among the initiatives are repainting and doubling the
size of runway hold short lines and outlining them in black to improve
contrast. Also on the list is improved pilot testing and evaluation,
with more questions on surface operations added to FAA knowledge
tests. All check flights (new pilot certificate, biennial flight
reviews, etc.) will include evaluations of pilot knowledge of airport
signs, lighting, and markings. (Ironically, these items were included
in the 1998 recommendations of another runway incursion advisory
committee, chaired by AOPA Air Safety Foundation Executive Director
Bruce Landsberg.) Other initiatives include a new advisory circular on
airport surface operations, a review of pilot/controller
communications phraseology, teamwork and memory enhancement training
for tower controllers, and more education for foreign pilots. The FAA
listed AOPA, the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, and the International
Council of Aircraft Owner and Pilot Associations as resources to be
used in accomplishing the runway incursion initiatives."
WHAT TO DO
----------
Like so many things in life, it's up to each of us individually to see
that things are done right by getting involved. Vow to put aside some
time to devote to correcting the system. Act when you feel your input
can be productive in making a difference. Save this post as a
reference, so you'll have it when you want it.
GET INVOLVED. SPEAK UP. TAKE ACTION.
Jack
> I wouldn't want to have all my eggs in one basket.
For multiple reasons it is essential to avoid that trap.
But I am not convinced that any more than lip service will be paid to the
situation, as has been the case with removing navaids from service and then
not supporting those areas with off airways routeing.
--
Stan Prevost
Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:spm6bq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> " Stan" <spre...@hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> news:splev7c...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Well, sorry, I still don't get it. I understand your first sentence,
but
> > it applies equally to both published and unpublished routes between
> > published fixes. In either case you are proceeding along a defined
line,
> > the line drawn straight between the fixes. As for the second sentence,
> > the plane does not just suddenly appear at some arbitrary point in
space,
> > it would be along a defined line between two fixes known to the
controller
> > because it would be part of the clearance. The controller will know
from
> > the flight plan or from asking the pilot what the speed is, and will
know
> > the time at which the plane crossed the first fix defining the line.
> >
>
> airways or other off-airways direct routes that some other aircraft may
> choose to fly?
>
>
I don't know what all a controller has to work with. But I can lay a chart
out in front of me, see the locations of navaids or other fixes, see where
airways are defined between pairs of them, and also see where the line
between any pair of fixes is (or would be if I actually drew it) even if
there is no named airway shown. If I have four fixes, say N, E, S, and W,
arranged on the four cardinal points of a circle, and I have an airway
defined between N and S, but not one defined between E and W, I don't have a
lot of trouble figuring out where the direct route between E and W crosses
the defined airway between N and S. I figure controllers can display
navaids and other fixes in their area of responsibility on their radar
scopes, and probably have airways shown or can show them. I can see a
problem if the direct route is defined by fixes not in the controllers area
of responsibility, and if the computer system will not display a direct
route between them. That may represent a practical difficulty, but not a
logical distinction.
Tarver Engineering
> In article <399af415$1...@corp.newsfeeds.com>,
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote:
> >
> > That is not what it takes; the desire for satellites has
> > become a major road block to modernization. The Airlines
> > are unlikely to allow FAA to blackmail them into paying
> > for a complex system well in excess of what FAA has already
> > shown themselves incapable of completing on the ground.
> >
>
> What on the ground is incomplete?
A modern air traffic control system. Those vacuum tubbe thingies are not
what we mean when we say modern.
> > I believe that VHF DataLink could already have made deviations
> > from the airways commonplace.
> Deviations from the airways are commonplace now, and have been for
> quite some time.
If deviations from the airways were commonplace there would not be the
weather delays we are seeing now.
> > There is no reason why weather planners inside ATC should not
> > be using NOAH's immages to manage traffic flow; instead there
> > is a conference call twice a day.
> Noah was a fine shipwright, I know nothing about his forecasting skills.
NOAH already has the real time radar and weather system in place, but FAA
would reather rely on conference calls; right up there with doing nothing.
> > Privatization is where we are headed, right, or wrong. The
> > failure in performance has left the system little choice, but
> > to change management of the system.
> What benefit is there to privatization? How could airspace be
> privatized to begin with?
Privatize control of the airspace Steve; now stop being silly. It could
even be done by regions so that there is competition; just like our Country
has competetion between regions.
Bob Gardner
mountainous west, there are many areas where there is no radar coverage below 10,000
feet. Satellite navigation, as Steve McNicoll describes it, has no such terrain
obstruction problems.
Bob Gardner
Jack wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Until we get satellite position reporting it just ain't gonna work.
> > >
> > > And the satellite requirement is just the tip of the iceberg, isn't it, Newps?
> >
> >
> > Not really. Your aircraft broadcasts its position to a satellite, just
> > like a transponder. But this would eliminate gaps in coverage. The
> > satellite rebroadcasts that info to an earth station and sends me the
> > info and displays it on a screen, mixed with the transponder info from
> > radar sites. Bingo, now I can see everybody from the ground up at any
> > point of my airspace. Now you can all go willy nilly direct and I can
> > separate very easily.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Why is this better than ground based radar?
>
> Can it possibly be cheaper?
>
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> To say that area nav is not approved in non-radar environments in order
> to provide seperation, is like saying that spoons were invented because
> breakfast cereal is not as sweet as you'd like it. You've left out the
> part about what sugar does.
>
I didn't say that area nav is not approved in non-radar environments in
order to provide separation. I said that off-airways routes, or routes that
are beyond navaid usable altitude/distance limitations, are not available in
a non-radar environment because aircraft cannot then be separated.
>
> Position reports can do the same thing in any environment.
>
But you can't separate aircraft with random position reports, you must know
how the positions relate to other positions. Hence the airways system and
position reporting for separation in a non-radar environment.
>
> An FAA with a clue would not have done away with our VORs and NDBs
> before being able to provide a reliable _system_ with which to replace
> them.
>
I'm sorry, I had assumed you were a pilot. I don't know what your source of
information was, but you were misinformed. VORs and NDBs haven't been done
away with.
>
> Hey! Nobody cares how he does it!
>
I think you'll find that those who are being provided separation do care how
he does it.
>
> You said he was gonna' be able to do it, and twenty years later you
> still can't make it happen!
>
What the hell are you talking about?
>
> End of story.
>
End of your story. Obviously you're flying the airways of life with a
couple of props feathered.
Stan Prevost
Bob Noel <ihates...@hw1nospam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-B44...@news.ne.mediaone.net...
> In article <spm2dl...@corp.supernews.com>, " Stan"
> <spre...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> > > Using a compass, DG and clock is not a viable means to navigate to
> > > an airway, intersection, airport, etc. in IMC conditions.
> >
> > OK, so I still think like a VFR pilot! :-) I don't have my IR yet, so
> > I'm
> > entitled! :-)
> >
> > But I'll bet you I can find any navaid, intersection, or airport while
> > officially using my compass and clock. I just won't show you the
> > battery-powered backup handheld GPS that I use as "an aid to situational
> > awareness"! :-)
>
>
I don't know, maybe none. But I can program in the ones I am interested in
into any of them. I've done a pretty good job of cross country flying with
a little hiking GPS (situational awareness only!!), including turns at
predetermined nonpublished points and zigzag courses between MOAs and
controlled airspace. The biggest problem I have had with it is finding the
destination airport, because it is always under the nose of the aircraft!
Or it was, until I learned to introduce a bias.
Stan Prevost
But never mind, I'm getting silly, this has nothing with what I am trying
to learn in this thread, I just tried to make a little joke along the way.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> I don't know what all a controller has to work with. But I can lay a
> chart out in front of me, see the locations of navaids or other fixes,
> see where airways are defined between pairs of them, and also see
> where the line between any pair of fixes is (or would be if I actually
> drew it) even if there is no named airway shown. If I have four fixes,
> say N, E, S, and W, arranged on the four cardinal points of a circle,
> and I have an airway defined between N and S, but not one defined
> between E and W, I don't have a lot of trouble figuring out where the
> direct route between E and W crosses the defined airway between
> N and S.
>
How many aircraft do you think you can handle at a time with this method,
all the while insuring that every aircraft is separated from every other
aircraft and also from the adjacent sector or facility?
>
> I figure controllers can display navaids and other fixes in their area of
> responsibility on their radar scopes, and probably have airways shown
> or can show them.
>
Wait a minute, radar scopes? I thought we were talking nonradar separation
here?
>
> I can see a problem if the direct route is defined by fixes not in the
> controllers area of responsibility, and if the computer system will not
> display a direct route between them. That may represent a practical
> difficulty, but not a logical distinction.
>
Computer system? The computer system used in nonradar separation is the
controller's noggin.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Larry Dighera" <LDig...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:YAFm5.1891$uf2....@typhoon.we.rr.com...
>
> Wasn't it deregulation of the airline industry that lead to the current
> chaos of overbooked flights, over crowded hubs, and the worst spate
> of delays in the history of flight?
>
Indirectly. The primary cause of the current chaos is the airline's
scheduling more flights in a given time period than the airport can
accommodate even under ideal conditions.
>
> Won't the implementation of the Free Flight program ameliorate some of
> the ills of the overloaded, antiquated ATC system?
>
ATC needs updating, that's true, but it isn't the weak link in the system,
airport capacity is.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote in message
news:399b2...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
>
> A modern air traffic control system. Those vacuum tubbe thingies are not
> what we mean when we say modern.
>
What part of it is not complete?
>
> If deviations from the airways were commonplace there would not be the
> weather delays we are seeing now.
>
Say what? What has one to do with the other? Regardless, deviations from
the airways ARE commonplace.
>
> NOAH already has the real time radar and weather system in place, but FAA
> would reather rely on conference calls; right up there with doing nothing.
>
I think you're confusing the builder of the ark with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
>
> Privatize control of the airspace Steve; now stop being silly.
>
It's the very idea of privatizing control of the airspace that is silly.
>
> It could even be done by regions so that there is competition; just
> like our Country has competetion between regions.
>
Competition exists only if the user has a choice in providers. But if there
is more than one provider of ATC services in an area, than separation is not
assured to any user. ATC, by it's nature, must be a monopoly, and a
monopoly cannot have any competition.
Stan Prevost
>
> I didn't say that area nav is not approved in non-radar environments in
> order to provide separation. I said that off-airways routes, or routes
that
> are beyond navaid usable altitude/distance limitations, are not available
in
> a non-radar environment because aircraft cannot then be separated.
>
This is what my original question was about, and I don't understand what you
are saying. I'm not just asking what the rules say, but what is the reason
for the rules. I assumed that a route defined by the direct line between
two VORs, not named as an airway, would be called an off-airways route. And
I can't get that routing in a nonradar environment (according to the AIM,
but you indicate there are some circumstances under which I can get it).
But I can get it in a radar environment. And the reason has to do with the
inability of the controller to provide separation without radar data. But I
can get an airways route in a nonradar environment, and the controller uses
pilot position reports to work the separation problem (as complex as it is,
as depicted by Chip). What is the difference? Is radar data required for
separation or isn't it? What's magic about giving the route a name?
Nor do I understand the relevance (in terms of underlying logic, not
explicit reading of rules) of being within the service volume of the
navaids, if I am flying the route with certified GPS.
Dick and Jane level will be fine. I ain't proud, just ignorant.
Stan Prevost
>
> "Stan Prevost" <spre...@dontspam.hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> news:spm9ldf...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > I don't know what all a controller has to work with. But I can lay a
> > chart out in front of me, see the locations of navaids or other fixes,
> > see where airways are defined between pairs of them, and also see
> > where the line between any pair of fixes is (or would be if I actually
> > drew it) even if there is no named airway shown. If I have four fixes,
> > say N, E, S, and W, arranged on the four cardinal points of a circle,
> > and I have an airway defined between N and S, but not one defined
> > between E and W, I don't have a lot of trouble figuring out where the
> > direct route between E and W crosses the defined airway between
> > N and S.
> >
>
> How many aircraft do you think you can handle at a time with this method,
> all the while insuring that every aircraft is separated from every other
Not very many, as ably illustrated by Chip. But that seems to be the system
that exists, that is defined for operating in a nonradar environment. You
asked how the controller can do it, that's how, and apparently how he is
expected to do it.
>
>
> >
> > I figure controllers can display navaids and other fixes in their area
of
> > responsibility on their radar scopes, and probably have airways shown
> > or can show them.
> >
>
> Wait a minute, radar scopes? I thought we were talking nonradar
separation
> here?
Where are the controllers? Except for the local controllers, aren't they in
ARTCCs and TRACONs? And aren't those radar facilities? And aren't they the
ones who handle nonradar situations? While handling their radar situations?
And don't they do their work sitting at radar scopes which display all kinds
of information? Is their console not their primary tool for accessing
information? Do the scopes not display nonradar information also, such as
airspace boundaries, and maybe airways? Do we have buildings somewhere full
of nonradar controllers? My original question arose from my planning for a
particular approach in an area which apparently is out of radar coverage of
the responsible Center due to terrain, but I don't expect to be handled by a
dedicated nonradar controller. It will be some poor guy/gal who has to deal
with me in addition to everything else. And that person will be sitting at
a radar scope while handling my nonradar situation. And I believe that
computer-driven scope can display the locations of navaids and fixes.
>
>
> >
> > I can see a problem if the direct route is defined by fixes not in the
> > controllers area of responsibility, and if the computer system will not
> > display a direct route between them. That may represent a practical
> > difficulty, but not a logical distinction.
> >
>
> Computer system? The computer system used in nonradar separation is the
> controller's noggin.
>
Exactly, and that is a large part of the problem. The controller is sitting
at a computer-driven console which provides absolutely no assistance to one
of the controllers' toughest jobs. But that's another thread.
Jonathan Friedman
The ATC Manual (7100.65) states that aircraft on random routes (direct, off
airways) must be radar monitored.
Without radar, ATC has no way of safely transitioning an aircraft from the
enroute structure to the approach phase.
Ultimately, separation from not only other aircraft, but from terrain and
structures can only be guaranteed on airways, or with radar monitoring on
random routes.
Regards,
Jonathan
PS Nice piece in the current IFR on random routes.
Stan Prevost <spre...@dontspam.hiwaay.net> wrote in message
news:spju3ia...@corp.supernews.com...
> Hi, y'all -
>
> What is the purpose of not allowing off-airway routing where there is no
> radar coverage? What does radar coverage have to do with VOR airways?
For
> a GPS RNAV aircraft, what good do the VORs do? As I understand the (Part
> 91) rules, if I have approach certified GPS (even enroute certified), I
am
> not required to even have VOR receivers. If I don't have to have VOR
> receivers, why must I fly VOR routes?
>
> Stan Prevost
>
>
>
Tarver Engineering
>
> "Larry Dighera" <LDig...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:YAFm5.1891$uf2....@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> >
> > chaos of overbooked flights, over crowded hubs, and the worst spate
> > of delays in the history of flight?
> >
>
> scheduling more flights in a given time period than the airport can
> accommodate even under ideal conditions.
Serving the flying public is what the airlines do.
> > Won't the implementation of the Free Flight program ameliorate some of
> > the ills of the overloaded, antiquated ATC system?
> >
>
> ATC needs updating, that's true, but it isn't the weak link in the system,
> airport capacity is.
There is $40 billion in the pipe for airport modernization. ATC's inability
to manage the airways with WRT weather is a major part of the problem.
Tarver Engineering
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote in message
> news:399b2...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> >
> > A modern air traffic control system. Those vacuum tubbe thingies are
not
> > what we mean when we say modern.
> >
>
> What part of it is not complete?
The Honeywell computer upgrade that the Govenrnment bought the computers for
and was going to write the software for never happened. We are in the
process of a second major upgrade, but the reslts thus far are less than
impressive.
> > If deviations from the airways were commonplace there would not be the
> > weather delays we are seeing now.
> Say what? What has one to do with the other? Regardless, deviations from
> the airways ARE commonplace.
Pilots can see the real time weather data NOAA is producing, they know they
could fly around that weather safely; if given clearance.
> > NOAH already has the real time radar and weather system in place, but
FAA
> > would reather rely on conference calls; right up there with doing
nothing.
> I think you're confusing the builder of the ark with the National Oceanic
> and Atmospheric Administration.
My acronym mistake, but the fact pointed out in my statement remains true.
> > Privatize control of the airspace Steve; now stop being silly.
> It's the very idea of privatizing control of the airspace that is silly.
The FAA has not demonstrated the ability to get the job done, partially due
to the fact that some want "we are the world" satellite based ATC so bad
nothing else is allowed to move forward. If you want to keep control in
Public hands you will be required to show some improvement.
> > It could even be done by regions so that there is competition; just
> > like our Country has competetion between regions.
> Competition exists only if the user has a choice in providers. But if
there
> is more than one provider of ATC services in an area, than separation is
not
> assured to any user. ATC, by it's nature, must be a monopoly, and a
> monopoly cannot have any competition.
A user in a region is guaranteed seperation by the regional control. As
cities compete for business Airports compete for passengers. When one
region outpaces its competition more money flows into that region; by the
very nature of how business is done.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> This is what my original question was about, and I don't understand
> what you are saying. I'm not just asking what the rules say, but
> what is the reason for the rules.
>
The reason for the rules is to provide approved separation. I know that is
a rather circular response, but as the rules are rather arbitrary to begin
with I just don't know how else to put it.
>
> I assumed that a route defined by the direct line between two VORs,
> not named as an airway, would be called an off-airways route.
>
It is, but if those VORs are both L or H class, and if they are not more
than 80 miles apart, then a direct line between them that is not named as an
airway is an acceptable non-radar route.
>
> And I can't get that routing in a nonradar environment (according to
> the AIM, but you indicate there are some circumstances under which
> I can get it).
>
Yes, it is explained in FAA Order 7110.65, paragraphs 4-1-1 and 4-1-2. Here
is a link to a very good online version of that weighty tome:
http://www.faa.gov/atpubs/ATC/Chp4/atc0401.html
>
> But I can get it in a radar environment. And the reason has to do with
> the inability of the controller to provide separation without radar data.
> But I can get an airways route in a nonradar environment, and the
> controller uses pilot position reports to work the separation problem
> (as complex as it is, as depicted by Chip). What is the difference?
> Is radar data required for separation or isn't it?
>
No, radar data is not required for separation. Radar data is required only
for radar separation. Where radar data is not available nonradar
separation, also called manual separation, is provided.
>
> What's magic about giving the route a name?
>
I don't understand the question.
>
> Nor do I understand the relevance (in terms of underlying logic, not
> explicit reading of rules) of being within the service volume of the
> navaids, if I am flying the route with certified GPS.
>
Not the service volume, Normal Usable Altitude and Radius Distances. The
service volume is based on the ground elevation at the navaid, the Normal
Usable Altitudes and Radius Distance is based on MSL altitude.
There are something like 2900 VORs, VOR/DMEs, VORTACs, ILSs SDFs and LDAs in
the US, and just 200 nav frequencies to handle all of them. Operating above
or beyond the Normal Usable Altitude and Radius Distance of a navaid means
you no longer have a reliable signal.
Here's a real-life example. One of the arrival routes for the Detroit area
is LAN V103 SPRTN, Lansing VORTAC is about 65 miles northwest of Detroit.
Sometimes high-altitude traffic bound for Detroit would request a vector for
Lansing. While instructing at a sector overlying southern Wisconsin, I've
had a few trainee controllers issue a suitable vector for Lansing followed
by "proceed direct when able". The problem was that Lansing VORTAC operated
on 110.8, and so did the RFD VORTAC, at Rockford Illinois. Whenever a
trainee did this, I'd point to the aircraft just cleared and say "watch him
closely". Many of the aircraft would begin a right turn towards Rockford.
One turned almost due south, a heading that simple logic should have told
them couldn't possibly be right! Of course, we had good radar and turned
him back on course, but I think you can now see why these altitude and
distance limits exist in a nonradar environment.
Tarver Engineering
"Warren Jones" <chip...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:HRHm5.2999$2l4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote in message
> news:399b2...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
> >
> >
> > weather delays we are seeing now.
>
> "deviation" is precisely one of the reasons we are experiencing massive
> delays and moving towards gridlock at a certain pace. Simply put, there
are
> a hell of a lot of airplanes up there, and more coming every week with the
> explosion of regional jet operations to complement the air carriers.
We all knew this was comming ten years ago.
> When
> you get into the flight levels, we are approaching the maximum number of
> flights possible over certain fixes at certain times, even on a blue-bird
> day.
This is why the airways system is obsolete. Free flight is being held back
for pie in the sky satellite constellations; that it is now too late to
build and deploy.
> With the NRP, most of these guys are flying direct to fixes hundreds
> of miles apart, not even filed on airways until they are within 200 miles
of
> their destination.
> They enter the sector willy nilly and exit willy nilly,
> but at least ATC can observe them on radar and see or predict or even
assign
> them a vector when needed. When weather hits, these aircraft "deviate"
off
> of their route of flight, regardless of the presence of an airway on that
> route. Then, they can be seen, but their route can neither be predicted
or
> often even assigned to them.
The use of radar for control is obsolete and a real time vector system is
required to alleviate the problem.
> Delays occur because ATC can only handle a few of these route of flight
> deviations before they have to start spreading out the traffic, or
rerouting
> it over other already crowded fixes.
Now you are at the root of the problem. A 1950's solution is slowly losing
its grip on the system.
> These deviating aircraft cannot be
> safely separated at normal volume from other IFR traffic that is also
> deviating around the same weather. Regardless of the presence of other
> traffic or airways, flight crews don't fly voluntarily into convective
> weather. Separation between IFR flights remains an ATC responsiblity
> regardless of the fact that the flight crews are refusing vectors etc for
> separation, so ATC shuts the door or spaces the traffic out. This causes
a
> ripple effect down the line. It has always been this way, except that now
> the airlines have crammed so many flights into the enroute system at the
> same time (due to the hub and spoke system and record profit levels) that
> when ATC spreads the traffic out for weather the whole house of cards
> collapses. This problem will continue to exist whether ATC is a
government
> function or a private enterprise *as long as human ATCS' are held
> responsible for standard IFR separation*.
Some in the North East are already moving to eliminate most of small GA from
the equation. It is obvios that GA does not support Mode-S for everyone and
adding the burden of a FDR will drive most small airplanes out of the
system.
> The only solution is to either regulate the amount of aircraft in the
system
> to a safe level or to reduce the separation between them, radar,
non-radar,
> satellite, whatever. The former won't happen in a U.S
government-controlled
> ATC environment because it is anti-free enterprise. The latter will be
> costly and will require massive infrastructure changes. This will cost a
> massive amount of money...
Privatization brings money; just like it did to USPS.
> > > > There is no reason why weather planners inside ATC should not
> > > > be using NOAH's immages to manage traffic flow; instead there
> > > > is a conference call twice a day.
> >
> >
> > NOAH already has the real time radar and weather system in place, but
FAA
> > would reather rely on conference calls; right up there with doing
nothing.
>
> The FAA holds conference calls with system users and facility traffic
> managers every two HOURS to discuss weather, system delays, routes etc.
The
> purpose of this (I think it is still called Spring 2000) is allegedly to
> share decision making between the airlines and the FAA to avoid delays
etc.
It has failed to produce results. The conference call idea fits into the
"something must be done" catagory, but results are required.
> This program utilizes Airline forcasters as well as FAA forcasters and IS
> based on NOAA real-time weather data. Only problem is that weather is
> dynamic and the plans are only updated every two hours. Often this has
the
> net effect of rerouting aircraft around NOAA forcasted weather that fails
to
> develop as forcast. It also has the effect of ignoring enroute volume on
> the weather re-route, adding airplanes to an already saturated sector,
which
> tubes the controller at the re-route fix, which causes him to spread out
the
> traffic, which causes more delays somewhere else. The best laid plans...
Real time operation is what is required to get us out of this jam.
> >
> > > > Privatization is where we are headed, right, or wrong. The
> > > > failure in performance has left the system little choice, but
> > > > to change management of the system.
>
> Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment of where ATC is headed.
> However, I believe there is still plenty of choice in the matter, and
> privatization is the worst possible option. I believe that Air Traffic
> Control is an obviously Federal governmental function, due to its
> fundamental involvement in interstate commerce, national security/defense
> and the safety of the taxpayers who use it. I believe that we will all
rue
> the day we allow our national ATC system to get into the hands of private
> interests. The people who will lose the most (maybe everything) is GA
> because the user fees to pay for the technology we all say we need (so
that
> Stan can make an off-airway point to point flight in a non-radar
> environment) will be paid by the USERS. The people who will profit most
> will be the airlines, who can pass the costs along to their passengers.
>
> >
> > Privatize control of the airspace Steve; now stop being silly. It could
> > even be done by regions so that there is competition; just like our
> Country
> > has competetion between regions.
> Stop it! You're scaring me John.
The way things are now scares me. We are looking at a doubling of scheduled
operations over the next ten years and ATC is already five years behind the
power curve.
> You really want to see a competitive ATC
> system where facilities are vying with one another for business?
Every other part of our Country already does have competetion; whether it is
a City funding a stadium, or a nice palce to shop.
> What about safety?
The pressure on the current system is driving safety out the window.
> How would competition both increase capacity and reduce delays and
> simultaneously not erode safety in a private for-profit system?
With modern technology. The implementation of VDL alone could do this job,
but the Government continues to drag its feet.
> And if it's
> not for profit, how are you going to reward competition?
It is already for profit, except incompetence is what is rewarded.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> And how will a satellite-based system change that?
>
It won't.
Tarver Engineering
> >
> > To say that area nav is not approved in non-radar environments in order
> > to provide seperation, is like saying that spoons were invented because
> > breakfast cereal is not as sweet as you'd like it. You've left out the
> > part about what sugar does.
> >
>
> order to provide separation. I said that off-airways routes, or routes
that
> are beyond navaid usable altitude/distance limitations, are not available
in
> a non-radar environment because aircraft cannot then be separated.
There is where the system breaks down; with its dependance on outmoded
technology. FAA's control of off airways (uncontrolled airspace) has little
effect on safety.
> > Position reports can do the same thing in any environment.
> But you can't separate aircraft with random position reports, you must
know
> how the positions relate to other positions. Hence the airways system and
> position reporting for separation in a non-radar environment.
VDL eliminates this problem by allowing communication and vectoring.
> > An FAA with a clue would not have done away with our VORs and NDBs
> > before being able to provide a reliable _system_ with which to replace
> > them.
> I'm sorry, I had assumed you were a pilot. I don't know what your source
of
> information was, but you were misinformed. VORs and NDBs haven't been
done
> away with.
It would be too expensive for GA to convert many older airplanes from VOR.
Tarver Engineering
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> > VORs and NDBs haven't been done away with.
>
decomissioned,
> the lack of the ability within the system to provide off-airways area nav
in
> those areas in a non-radar environment is a degradation of the system.
>
> Seems clear enough. I guess I wrongly assumed you could read. Anyone who
> construed my comments to be a claim that all NDBs and VORs have been
> decommissioned needs some remediation.
Steve is just frustrated, he knows the system is already broken and
guaranted to get worse. A change is required and we don't have time for
FAA's 7 year regulatory process to do that job. Over that same 7 years the
number of scheduled operations is expected to increase almost 70% and it is
already behind the power curve.
Roy Smith, CFI
> The problem was that Lansing VORTAC operated on 110.8, and so did the
> RFD VORTAC, at Rockford Illinois. Whenever a trainee did this, I'd
> point to the aircraft just cleared and say "watch him closely". Many
> of the aircraft would begin a right turn towards Rockford.
I was taught to always listen to the ident before believing a signal.
The other day, I was flying a new plane to my club and discovered that
the ident function did not work on the #1 NAV. It bothered me that I
could not ident #1, so I just used #2 as much as I could, and didn't
sweat it when I had to use both and couldn't ident one of them.
Stories like the above are good to read -- they remind you that there
really is a reason you were taught to do things right.
--
Roy Smith, CFI-ASE-IA
Steven P. McNicoll
>
Your assumption was correct, it is your ability to put your thoughts into
words that is deficient.
>
> Anyone who construed my comments to be a claim that all NDBs
> and VORs have been decommissioned needs some remediation.
>
You wrote; "An FAA with a clue would not have done away with our VORs and
NDBs before being able to provide a reliable _system_ with which to replace
them." I cannot know what you're thinking when you write, I have to go with
what you actually write. What you wrote was incorrect.
In 1996 there were 1,043 VORs in operation in the US, in 1984 there were
1,035. In 1996 there were 1,328 NDBs in operation in the US, in 1984 there
were 1,211. Seems your knowledge of navaids is as deficient as your writing
ability.
Stan Prevost
Steven P. McNicoll <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
news:spmkkr...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Stan Prevost" <spre...@dontspam.hiwaay.net> wrote in message
> news:spmgnia...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Nor do I understand the relevance (in terms of underlying logic, not
> > explicit reading of rules) of being within the service volume of the
> > navaids, if I am flying the route with certified GPS.
> >
>
> Not the service volume, Normal Usable Altitude and Radius Distances. The
> service volume is based on the ground elevation at the navaid, the Normal
> Usable Altitudes and Radius Distance is based on MSL altitude.
>
> There are something like 2900 VORs, VOR/DMEs, VORTACs, ILSs SDFs and LDAs
in
> the US, and just 200 nav frequencies to handle all of them. Operating
above
> or beyond the Normal Usable Altitude and Radius Distance of a navaid means
> you no longer have a reliable signal.
>
> Here's a real-life example. One of the arrival routes for the Detroit
area
> is LAN V103 SPRTN, Lansing VORTAC is about 65 miles northwest of Detroit.
> Sometimes high-altitude traffic bound for Detroit would request a vector
for
> Lansing. While instructing at a sector overlying southern Wisconsin, I've
> had a few trainee controllers issue a suitable vector for Lansing followed
> by "proceed direct when able". The problem was that Lansing VORTAC
operated
> on 110.8, and so did the RFD VORTAC, at Rockford Illinois. Whenever a
> trainee did this, I'd point to the aircraft just cleared and say "watch
him
> closely". Many of the aircraft would begin a right turn towards Rockford.
> One turned almost due south, a heading that simple logic should have told
> them couldn't possibly be right! Of course, we had good radar and turned
> him back on course, but I think you can now see why these altitude and
> distance limits exist in a nonradar environment.
>
>
Yes, you have made it clear for the case when VOR receivers are being used
for navigation based on the ground VOR facilities, and I think the Normal
Usable Altitude and Radius Distances must be the underlying quantities which
lead to charted MAAs. But none of which addresses the stated question which
had to do with flying the route with certified GPS.
Dang, how did this thread, which I started on rec.aviation.ifr, get spread
across five newsgroups?
Stan
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Yes, you have made it clear for the case when VOR receivers are being
> used for navigation based on the ground VOR facilities, and I think the
> Normal Usable Altitude and Radius Distances must be the underlying
> quantities which lead to charted MAAs. But none of which addresses
> the stated question which had to do with flying the route with certified
> GPS.
>
When the rules were made there was no GPS. Or LORAN, or INS, or courseline
computers, etc. Areas where non-radar separation is required, due to the
lack of adequate radar coverage, tend to be areas of relatively low traffic.
And since there is relatively little traffic relying on these rules there is
little reason to update them.
Steven P. McNicoll
>
> Not very many, as ably illustrated by Chip. But that seems to be the
> system that exists, that is defined for operating in a nonradar
environment. You
> asked how the controller can do it, that's how, and apparently how he is
> expected to do it.
>
But that's NOT the system that exists! The system that exists has aircraft
on established airways where radar separation cannot be provided, or on
direct routes between navaids that are within standard navaid
altitude/distance limits. You advocated a completely random route through
such an area.
>
> Where are the controllers? Except for the local controllers, aren't they
> in ARTCCs and TRACONs? And aren't those radar facilities?
>
The R in ARTCC stands for Route, not Radar. We didn't have any at Chicago
ARTCC, but I believe there are sectors in ARTCCs that do not use radar at
all, that rely strictly on nonradar methods. I don't know how many there
are today, perhaps none, but in 1994 the US still operated 13 nonradar
approach control facilities.
>
> And aren't they the ones who handle nonradar situations? While handling
> their radar situations?
>
Sometimes.
>
> And don't they do their work sitting at radar scopes which display all
> kinds of information?
>
It displays radar information, along with various video maps with airways,
SUA, facility boundaries, navaids, etc.
>
> Is their console not their primary tool for accessing information?
>
It's certainly their primary tool for assessing radar information,
controller charts tend to be more useful in nonradar situations.
>
> Do the scopes not display nonradar information also, such as airspace
> boundaries, and maybe airways?
>
Yes, but the charts show that information and more.
>
> Do we have buildings somewhere full of nonradar controllers?
>
Full? Maybe. I'm fairly certain we have ARTCC sectors where nonradar
separation is the only separation available.
>
> My original question arose from my planning for a particular approach
> in an area which apparently is out of radar coverage of the responsible
> Center due to terrain, but I don't expect to be handled by a dedicated
> nonradar controller. It will be some poor guy/gal who has to deal with
> me in addition to everything else. And that person will be sitting at
> a radar scope while handling my nonradar situation.
>
You may be right. Or it may be that Boston ARTCC has stratified that area
such that traffic in that particular area is worked by a dedicated nonradar
controller, without a radar scope, until handed off to an adjacent radar
sector or TRACON or until the traffic climbs high enough to be worked by a
radar controller who handles the stratum above. The only way to know for
sure is to visit the Center.
>
> And I believe that computer-driven scope can display the locations of
> navaids and fixes.
>
It sure can, but that's not particularly useful if the aircraft is not
displayed as well.
>
> Exactly, and that is a large part of the problem. The controller is
> sitting at a computer-driven console which provides absolutely no
> assistance to one of the controllers' toughest jobs.
>
Perhaps you should visit an ATC facility or two. You may find things a bit
different than you imagine.
Tarver Engineering
"Tom Williams" <tom.wi...@hans.nospam> wrote in message
news:399B6102...@hans.nospam...
> > >
> > > "Larry Dighera" <LDig...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:YAFm5.1891$uf2....@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't it deregulation of the airline industry that lead to the
current
> > > > chaos of overbooked flights, over crowded hubs, and the worst spate
> > > > of delays in the history of flight?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Indirectly. The primary cause of the current chaos is the airline's
> > > scheduling more flights in a given time period than the airport can
> > > accommodate even under ideal conditions.
> >
> > Serving the flying public is what the airlines do.
> >
> > > > Won't the implementation of the Free Flight program ameliorate some
of
> > > > the ills of the overloaded, antiquated ATC system?
> > > >
> > >
> > > ATC needs updating, that's true, but it isn't the weak link in the
system,
> > > airport capacity is.
> >
> > There is $40 billion in the pipe for airport modernization. ATC's
inability
> > to manage the airways with WRT weather is a major part of the problem.
>
and
> let a new operator figure it out" doesn't count as a technical solution)
Are
> you working to help create a better system?
I am supporting flight test of both the LAAS and WAAS systems with interface
to analog and digital airplanes from new navigation systems. I have been
promoting the idea of moving the LAAS (VDL) system forward at a faster rate.
I have supported releasing the Aviation Trust Fund to be spent against
alleviating part of the problem by pouring concrete. The next hurdle is to
update the ATC system with equipment that allows more off airways
operations. I would support equipment for ATC that allows tracking of
vector speed and altitude to calculate conflicts without watching on radar.
The reason I am now supporting privatization is that it is the only way to
get around current management problems at FAA. For the sake of having their
own satellite constellation I believe FAA are dragging their feet on GPS
moving forward.
Tarver Engineering
> >
> > And how will a satellite-based system change that?
> >
>
> It won't.
Only through changes in ATC's operating procedures are we going to see an
improvement. We all saw this problem demonstrated when a controller was
fired at Chicago; for bending the rules. Once ATC began observing all the
rulesin that center the number of airplanes handled dropped form 80 to 100
each hour to 64.
Tarver Engineering
"Norm Melick" <hen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:399AFCFD...@worldnet.att.net...
> Stan wrote:
>
> > I am only required to have navigation equipment appropriate for the
ground
> > facilities to be used. Forgetting "ground equipment" vs "space
equipment",
>
> But this is a key point. GPS is not yet approved as the sole means
> of navigation.
GPS will never be the Sole Means of navigation, that died over a year ago
when the Administrator could not certify the system for sole means; you will
still need an altimeter.
Tarver Engineering
"Tom Williams" <tom.wi...@hans.nospam> wrote in message
time are
> you trying to claim that it was privatized?
When Rothchild took over the system over a decade ago. The USPS was only
partially privatized, but it now operates for profit.
> As for money, where do you think this "money" will come from? How will
$50
> billion of "privitization" money be more valuable than $50 billion of
federal
> R&D money?
Do you see $50 billion in Federal R&D money?
> > > > > > There is no reason why weather planners inside ATC should not
> > > > > > be using NOAH's immages to manage traffic flow; instead there
> > > > > > is a conference call twice a day.
> > > >tc.
> > The
> > > purpose of this (I think it is still called Spring 2000) is allegedly
to
> > > share decision making between the airlines and the FAA to avoid delays
> > etc.
> >
> > It has failed to produce results.
>
> Not true.
Is it your claim that delays are down this year?
> > T> You really want to see a competitive ATC
> > > system where facilities are vying with one another for business?
> >
> > Every other part of our Country already does have competetion; whether
it is
> > a City funding a stadium, or a nice palce to shop.
>
> I thought you were in favor of privatization? Cities funding statiums are
not
> examples of privatization.
The Brits privatizing their airports is in fact privatization and airports
do compete for traffic. (see Stapelton and DFW. The question I answered had
to do with competition, please read what I respond to and you will get a
much clearer picture of what is being discussed.
> > > What about safety?
> >
> > The pressure on the current system is driving safety out the window.
> >
> > > How would competition both increase capacity and reduce delays and
> > > simultaneously not erode safety in a private for-profit system?
> >
> > With modern technology. The implementation of VDL alone could do this
job,
> > but the Government continues to drag its feet.
> >
> > > And if it's
> > > not for profit, how are you going to reward competition?
> >
> > It is already for profit, except incompetence is what is rewarded.
>
> Huh????
You perhaps are also unaware of the Peter Principle?
Tarver Engineering
"Tom Williams" <tom.wi...@hans.nospam> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > To say that area nav is not approved in non-radar environments in
order
> > > > to provide seperation, is like saying that spoons were invented
because
> > > > breakfast cereal is not as sweet as you'd like it. You've left out
the
> > > > part about what sugar does.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I didn't say that area nav is not approved in non-radar environments
in
> > > order to provide separation. I said that off-airways routes, or
routes
> > that
> > > are beyond navaid usable altitude/distance limitations, are not
available
> > in
> > > a non-radar environment because aircraft cannot then be separated.
> >
> > There is where the system breaks down; with its dependance on outmoded
> > technology. FAA's control of off airways (uncontrolled airspace) has
little
> > effect on safety.
>
> United States, uncontrolled airspace is no higher than 1,200 feet above
the
> surface. If you think flying around IFR enroute at this altitude has no
effect
> on safety, than I think you are crazy.
The US funded a study that found exactly what I wrote. This was not the
conclusion FAA was looking for, but it is real.
> > > > Position reports can do the same thing in any environment.
> >
> > > But you can't separate aircraft with random position reports, you must
> > know
> > > how the positions relate to other positions. Hence the airways system
and
> > > position reporting for separation in a non-radar environment.
> >
> > VDL eliminates this problem by allowing communication and vectoring.
> >
> > > > An FAA with a clue would not have done away with our VORs and NDBs
> > > > before being able to provide a reliable _system_ with which to
replace
> > > > them.
> >
> > > I'm sorry, I had assumed you were a pilot. I don't know what your
source
> > of
> > > information was, but you were misinformed. VORs and NDBs haven't been
> > done
> > > away with.
> >
> > It would be too expensive for GA to convert many older airplanes from
VOR.
> >
>
> This statement does not follow at all with your earlier position. You are
> becoming circular in your reasoning.
Not everyone will be able to participate in free flight.
Tarver Engineering
"Tom Williams" <tom.wi...@hans.nospam> wrote in message
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > "Tom Williams" <tom.wi...@hans.nospam> wrote in message
> > > Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Steven P. McNicoll" <ronca...@writeme.com> wrote in message
Rather a circular and uninformed statement. When the huse funded LAAS at
10% above FAA's request FAA claimed it will not move the program ahead
faster; just more foot dragging.
> > I have supported releasing the Aviation Trust Fund to be spent against
> > alleviating part of the problem by pouring concrete. The next hurdle is
to
> > update the ATC system with equipment that allows more off airways
> > operations. I would support equipment for ATC that allows tracking of
> > vector speed and altitude to calculate conflicts without watching on
radar.
>
> That is a Congress/President issue, not an FAA issue.
It is all an FAA issue now; the money is there.
> > The reason I am now supporting privatization is that it is the only way
to
> > get around current management problems at FAA. For the sake of having
their
> > own satellite constellation I believe FAA are dragging their feet on
GPS
> > moving forward.
>
> I completely disagree. And don't forget most of this work is privatized
too.
Then you would be mistaken.
Jack
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 18:14:08 GMT, Jack <bar...@earthlink.net> spammed
> the quoted material below to 5 newsgroups:
It ain't braggin' if you can do it...
...and it isn't spam if it's of broad enough concern to relate to all of the
included r.a. NGs,
and specific enough to conform to the charters of each them, which it does.
-------------------
> [Jacks lament of DOT's and FAA's failure to stay abreast
> of technological advancement for the ATC system deleted]
I hope that I did a little more than bemoan the FAA's lack of a grasp on the
technical challenges,
because I think the technical challenges are not the most significant aspect. The
problem all along has been the inability of the FAA, and successive
Administrations, to come up with the winning combination of technological,
budgetary, and political savvy it requires to get the job done.
The longer it takes to come up with that winning combination, the more system
disruption, public frustration, and possibly disastrous aviation events are
likely to occur. Review our generations-old lost comm. procedures in light of the
traffic levels we have today and pray that our luck holds. Two or more NORDOs
approaching the same destination at the same time? Not so far-fetched today, and
the FAA knows it. And that's only talking about failures on the airborne end of
the equation.
--------
Other than that I thought your post,
"PRIVATIZE THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM?", added considerably to the
discussion.
Keep up the good work.
--
Jack
MAIL: < mailto:bar...@earthlink.net >
HOME: < http://home.earthlink.net/~baron58/index.html >
Bob Noel
<spre...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> > Using a compass, DG and clock is not a viable means to navigate to
> > an airway, intersection, airport, etc. in IMC conditions.
>
> OK, so I still think like a VFR pilot! :-) I don't have my IR yet, so
> I'm
> entitled! :-)
>
> But I'll bet you I can find any navaid, intersection, or airport while
> officially using my compass and clock. I just won't show you the
> battery-powered backup handheld GPS that I use as "an aid to situational
> awareness"! :-)
how many handheld GPS have all intersections?
btw - you really don't want to know how many errors in exist
in the databases of certified equipment, never mind the
uncertified handheld units.
--
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me...)
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and hw1 with mediaone)
Love4uandmee
Jack
> VORs and NDBs haven't been done away with.
My contention is that since some VORs and some NDBs have been decomissioned,
the lack of the ability within the system to provide off-airways area nav in
those areas in a non-radar environment is a degradation of the system.
Seems clear enough. I guess I wrongly assumed you could read. Anyone who
construed my comments to be a claim that all NDBs and VORs have been
decommissioned needs some remediation.
--
Warren Jones
"Tarver Engineering" <jta...@tminet.com> wrote in message
news:399b2...@corp.newsfeeds.com...
>
>
> If deviations from the airways were commonplace there would not be the
> weather delays we are seeing now.
John, deviations from airways happen all the time, every day. The term
"deviation" is precisely one of the reasons we are experiencing massive
delays and moving towards gridlock at a certain pace. Simply put, there are
a hell of a lot of airplanes up there, and more coming every week with the
explosion of regional jet operations to complement the air carriers. When
you get into the flight levels, we are approaching the maximum number of
flights possible over certain fixes at certain times, even on a blue-bird
day. With the NRP, most of these guys are flying direct to fixes hundreds
of miles apart, not even filed on airways until they are within 200 miles of
their destination. They enter the sector willy nilly and exit willy nilly,
but at least ATC can observe them on radar and see or predict or even assign
them a vector when needed. When weather hits, these aircraft "deviate" off
of their route of flight, regardless of the presence of an airway on that
route. Then, they can be seen, but their route can neither be predicted or
often even assigned to them.
Delays occur because ATC can only handle a few of these route of flight
deviations before they have to start spreading out the traffic, or rerouting
it over other already crowded fixes. These deviating aircraft cannot be
safely separated at normal volume from other IFR traffic that is also
deviating around the same weather. Regardless of the presence of other
traffic or airways, flight crews don't fly voluntarily into convective
weather. Separation between IFR flights remains an ATC responsiblity
regardless of the fact that the flight crews are refusing vectors etc for
separation, so ATC shuts the door or spaces the traffic out. This causes a
ripple effect down the line. It has always been this way, except that now
the airlines have crammed so many flights into the enroute system at the
same time (due to the hub and spoke system and record profit levels) that
when ATC spreads the traffic out for weather the whole house of cards
collapses. This problem will continue to exist whether ATC is a government
function or a private enterprise *as long as human ATCS' are held
responsible for standard IFR separation*.
The only solution is to either regulate the amount of aircraft in the system
to a safe level or to reduce the separation between them, radar, non-radar,
satellite, whatever. The former won't happen in a U.S government-controlled
ATC environment because it is anti-free enterprise. The latter will be
costly and will require massive infrastructure changes. This will cost a
massive amount of money...
>
> > > There is no reason why weather planners inside ATC should not
> > > be using NOAH's immages to manage traffic flow; instead there
> > > is a conference call twice a day.
>
>
> NOAH already has the real time radar and weather system in place, but FAA
> would reather rely on conference calls; right up there with doing nothing.
The FAA holds conference calls with system users and facility traffic
managers every two HOURS to discuss weather, system delays, routes etc. The
purpose of this (I think it is still called Spring 2000) is allegedly to
share decision making between the airlines and the FAA to avoid delays etc.
This program utilizes Airline forcasters as well as FAA forcasters and IS
based on NOAA real-time weather data. Only problem is that weather is
dynamic and the plans are only updated every two hours. Often this has the
net effect of rerouting aircraft around NOAA forcasted weather that fails to
develop as forcast. It also has the effect of ignoring enroute volume on
the weather re-route, adding airplanes to an already saturated sector, which
tubes the controller at the re-route fix, which causes him to spread out the
traffic, which causes more delays somewhere else. The best laid plans...
>
> > > Privatization is where we are headed, right, or wrong. The
> > > failure in performance has left the system little choice, but
> > > to change management of the system.
Unfortunately, I agree with your assessment of where ATC is headed.
However, I believe there is still plenty of choice in the matter, and
privatization is the worst possible option. I believe that Air Traffic
Control is an obviously Federal governmental function, due to its
fundamental involvement in interstate commerce, national security/defense
and the safety of the taxpayers who use it. I believe that we will all rue
the day we allow our national ATC system to get into the hands of private
interests. The people who will lose the most (maybe everything) is GA
because the user fees to pay for the technology we all say we need (so that
Stan can make an off-airway point to point flight in a non-radar
environment) will be paid by the USERS. The people who will profit most
will be the airlines, who can pass the costs along to their passengers.
>
> Privatize control of the airspace Steve; now stop being silly. It could
> even be done by regions so that there is competition; just like our
Country
> has competetion between regions.
>
>
Stop it! You're scaring me John. You really want to see a competitive ATC
system where facilities are vying with one another for business? What about
safety? How would competition both increase capacity and reduce delays and
simultaneously not erode safety in a private for-profit system? And if it's
not for profit, how are you going to reward competition?
Chip,
ZTL
Jack
> The primary cause of the current chaos is the airline's
> scheduling more flights in a given time period than the
> airport can accommodate even under ideal conditions.
And how will a satellite-based system change that?
--
Jack
> The only solution is to either regulate the amount of aircraft in the
> system...
> ...or to reduce the separation between them....
I don't think these are the only alternatives.
The DOT/FAA has been promising for years to come up with a system that would
handle the increase.
Maybe Congressional funding is to blame, but somebody needs to put together a
program that uses the airspace available, keeps aircraft separation at a safe
level, and can absorb the growth.
We can lay all the concrete we need, but most of it will wind up being parking
ramps if the system won't accomodate enroute volume.
There are some antiquated notions of first-come, first-served that need to be
addressed, as well, if we are going to avoid privatization. Holding up a .8M
a/c for a .7M a/c at a lower altitude when approaching an arrival route is
self-defeating.