Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
JayinKitsap wrote:Having a system of paths that are defined, say westbound between two waypoints is at 30K, with adequate separation horizontally does wonders for safety. There are things that can be done where routes with sufficient space would allow for steady climbs, but at crossings with other routes there is still a need for prescribed elevations. With technology improvements can be made, but tech does fail with quite regularity.
PatrickZ80 wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Having a system of paths that are defined, say westbound between two waypoints is at 30K, with adequate separation horizontally does wonders for safety. There are things that can be done where routes with sufficient space would allow for steady climbs, but at crossings with other routes there is still a need for prescribed elevations. With technology improvements can be made, but tech does fail with quite regularity.
That's why ATC uses even flight levels one way and odd flight levels the other way. Out of my head it was even flight levels heading east and south and odd flight levels heading west and north. Not really sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong.
PatrickZ80 wrote:Technically this is perfectly possible, however the biggest hurdle is in politics. For example in Europe each country controls it's own airspace and aircraft cannot cross the border between two countries at just any given point. This has to be done on the airway, mostly at a waypoint at the border. That's where the next ATC expects the aircraft to enter their airspace. ATC can give you a "direct" to a waypoint further up on your route, but only when that point is within their airspace. This way you can shave off a little piece of your flightplan.
The solution for this is called "Single European Skies" which is what many European airlines want, but the local governments of several European countries don't give this the priority it deserves. They just let it linger, so nothing changes.
On top of that, there'll always be areas that have to be flown around. Bad weather areas of course, but also military airspace.
garf25 wrote:Technically, in the future we will need less controllers. Technology should be able to space, route, and communicate automatically.
Technically you should be able to take off from San Francisco today and route direct New York. No doubt it will eventually happen.
PatrickZ80 wrote:That's why ATC uses even flight levels one way and odd flight levels the other way. Out of my head it was even flight levels heading east and south and odd flight levels heading west and north. Not really sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong.
JayinKitsap wrote:PatrickZ80 wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:Having a system of paths that are defined, say westbound between two waypoints is at 30K, with adequate separation horizontally does wonders for safety. There are things that can be done where routes with sufficient space would allow for steady climbs, but at crossings with other routes there is still a need for prescribed elevations. With technology improvements can be made, but tech does fail with quite regularity.
That's why ATC uses even flight levels one way and odd flight levels the other way. Out of my head it was even flight levels heading east and south and odd flight levels heading west and north. Not really sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong.
You are probably right, but the point is specific elevations for flow, in particular for crossing there is a vertical separation of 1,000 FT which can be controlled pretty well +- 250 feet and a specific horizontal separation. I recall there is separation between heading east and south so there is vertical separation.
SteelChair wrote:I don't see it happening any time soon in the USA. Delays are worse than ever. RVSM had no effect, things actually worse with the FAA now issuing AFPs-airway flow programs.
New York center fails out the vast majority of controllers attempting to check out there, guaranteeing continual manpower shortages (and lots of overtime). Cleveland and DC, which feed New York,.play by their own rules. Collectively its a mess. Government should not be operational.
garf25 wrote:Given today's TCAS and RNAV technology, how far away are we from "Cleared takeoff, route direct to destination"....
Please don't say it will never happen.......it will one day. VOR'S and airways will, one day, become a thing of the past.
In UK terms, some of the routings in and out of BHX are a joke. At some point things have to change.
mxaxai wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:PatrickZ80 wrote:
That's why ATC uses even flight levels one way and odd flight levels the other way. Out of my head it was even flight levels heading east and south and odd flight levels heading west and north. Not really sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong.
You are probably right, but the point is specific elevations for flow, in particular for crossing there is a vertical separation of 1,000 FT which can be controlled pretty well +- 250 feet and a specific horizontal separation. I recall there is separation between heading east and south so there is vertical separation.
Computer-controlled routings should be able to keep aircraft on "random" routings and altitudes away from each other. We already have TCAS for last minute changes. For high-traffic areas it might still be better to bundle traffic (e. g. TATL) but I'm sure some smart people can derive an algorithm that creates the most efficient flow.
Example: You file the optimum flight plan for your flight. Sometime later, another flight files a flight plan that intersects with yours. The traffic control computer then adjusts both your routings to achieve the desired seperation. As the flights progress, the real-time positions and any flight plan change requests (computed by the FMS) get transmitted to traffic control, which dynamically adjusts both your routings. Same thing happens if there's a malfunction that keeps you from contiuing as planned. You file a flight plan change request and the computer handles it. No human intervention necessary. I mean, we don't have little green men manually switching the worlds internet, do we?
VSMUT wrote:PatrickZ80 wrote:That's why ATC uses even flight levels one way and odd flight levels the other way. Out of my head it was even flight levels heading east and south and odd flight levels heading west and north. Not really sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Normally it's even levels going west, uneven going east. Italy, France and Portugal jumble it up because most flights there go north-south, so they go even to the north and uneven to the south. New Zealand does it the opposite way, even to the south and uneven to the north. IFR is at full levels (4000', 5000', 6000'), VFR is offset by 500 ft (4500', 5500', 6500').
It's not always applied though, you can often request an opposite level if it isn't occupied. Some places they even give it to you without your asking.
But that isn't a guarantee to avoid collisions. Flight paths can still intersect.
garf25 wrote:Technically, in the future we will need less controllers. Technology should be able to space, route, and communicate automatically.
Technically you should be able to take off from San Francisco today and route direct New York. No doubt it will eventually happen.
32andBelow wrote:VSMUT wrote:PatrickZ80 wrote:That's why ATC uses even flight levels one way and odd flight levels the other way. Out of my head it was even flight levels heading east and south and odd flight levels heading west and north. Not really sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Normally it's even levels going west, uneven going east. Italy, France and Portugal jumble it up because most flights there go north-south, so they go even to the north and uneven to the south. New Zealand does it the opposite way, even to the south and uneven to the north. IFR is at full levels (4000', 5000', 6000'), VFR is offset by 500 ft (4500', 5500', 6500').
It's not always applied though, you can often request an opposite level if it isn't occupied. Some places they even give it to you without your asking.
But that isn't a guarantee to avoid collisions. Flight paths can still intersect.
Yah but this doesn't ensure separation on a random route. You can have a plane flying SEA-FLL and one SAN-BOS and there route will cross and they could both be at the same "correct" east bound odd altitude.
garf25 wrote:Given today's TCAS and RNAV technology, how far away are we from "Cleared takeoff, route direct to destination"....
Please don't say it will never happen.......it will one day. VOR'S and airways will, one day, become a thing of the past.
In UK terms, some of the routings in and out of BHX are a joke. At some point things have to change.
SteelChair wrote:Cleveland and DC, which feed New York,.play by their own rules.
Kilopond wrote:Airlines are notriously ignorant as far as electronics are concerned: some CEO´s even pay real money for totally outdated dinosaur IFE boxes that actually shouldn`t be larger than match boxes by today`s standards.
If there was a will, aviation navigation could completely switch to GNSS today. No more VORs, no mor ILS systems. Just EGNOS/WAAS or equivalents with an accuracy of plus/minus one decimeter..
But the equipment OEMs aren`t very helpfull either. They mainly concentrate on the huge market of mobile devices which accounts for billions of samples. At the same time devices with fewer sales perspectives are widely ignored. For example, my nasty DOCSIS modem consumes as much electricity as my chest-high frigde-freezer combo. MAD!!!
strfyr51 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean, In 1975 I was on a flight in the Navy that took of from, Moffett Field California routed INS direct to Lossiemouth Scotland leading a flight of US Navy/ Marine A-6D's to Rota Spain. We landed at Mildenhall AB England and the A6's kept right on going. It was routed INS Direct. And we had the Litton-72 Inertials on Board. So you can imagine how long Ago that generation was. The "Ring Laser Gyro" INS was still in research. I didn't see my first one until 1985 Aboard the B767-222 while at United. I never saw GAC's And Flux Gates Mounted in the wings once I got out of the navy. But I flew all over the Atlantic and Pacific with them. Most of the time they were pretty Reliable.
32andBelow wrote:mxaxai wrote:Computer-controlled routings should be able to keep aircraft on "random" routings and altitudes away from each other. We already have TCAS for last minute changes. For high-traffic areas it might still be better to bundle traffic (e. g. TATL) but I'm sure some smart people can derive an algorithm that creates the most efficient flow.
Example: You file the optimum flight plan for your flight. Sometime later, another flight files a flight plan that intersects with yours. The traffic control computer then adjusts both your routings to achieve the desired seperation. As the flights progress, the real-time positions and any flight plan change requests (computed by the FMS) get transmitted to traffic control, which dynamically adjusts both your routings. Same thing happens if there's a malfunction that keeps you from contiuing as planned. You file a flight plan change request and the computer handles it. No human intervention necessary. I mean, we don't have little green men manually switching the worlds internet, do we?
There is no radar over the ocean. Until there is worldwide satellite radar then you have to be on an assigned route over the ocean.
You really want to rely on TCAS working in both aircraft 100% of the time?
atcsundevil wrote:SteelChair wrote:Cleveland and DC, which feed New York,.play by their own rules.
Huh..? Examples?
garf25 wrote:how far away are we from "Cleared takeoff, route direct to destination"
32andBelow wrote:mxaxai wrote:JayinKitsap wrote:
You are probably right, but the point is specific elevations for flow, in particular for crossing there is a vertical separation of 1,000 FT which can be controlled pretty well +- 250 feet and a specific horizontal separation. I recall there is separation between heading east and south so there is vertical separation.
Computer-controlled routings should be able to keep aircraft on "random" routings and altitudes away from each other. We already have TCAS for last minute changes. For high-traffic areas it might still be better to bundle traffic (e. g. TATL) but I'm sure some smart people can derive an algorithm that creates the most efficient flow.
Example: You file the optimum flight plan for your flight. Sometime later, another flight files a flight plan that intersects with yours. The traffic control computer then adjusts both your routings to achieve the desired seperation. As the flights progress, the real-time positions and any flight plan change requests (computed by the FMS) get transmitted to traffic control, which dynamically adjusts both your routings. Same thing happens if there's a malfunction that keeps you from contiuing as planned. You file a flight plan change request and the computer handles it. No human intervention necessary. I mean, we don't have little green men manually switching the worlds internet, do we?
There is no radar over the ocean. Until there is worldwide satellite radar then you have to be on an assigned route over the ocean.
You really want to rely on TCAS working in both aircraft 100% of the time?
PatrickZ80 wrote:For example in Europe each country controls it's own airspace and aircraft cannot cross the border between two countries at just any given point