Finally! FAA announces go ahead w/ new GPS ATC

[angels355]

On Fox News today the FAA announced that they are going to go ahead with upgrading our ATC from radar based systems to GPS systems which are much more precise, and therefore they can pack the air traffic a lot closer. An FAA spokesman said that right now we have the best ATC system in the world, however it is stretched to capacity and then some. The new GPS ATC system will allow us to handle a lot more traffic. If I heard right it will be in place in around five or more years.

Here is an article touching on this from earlier this month:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/trans...ays_08-07.html

PS: Almost forgot. Since this system will also require digital communication between planes in flight, it sounds like that means we'll all have to upgrade our instruments with this new GPS based ATC hardware in our various aircraft, be it 777, Bonanza, or what I'm flying right now, paper airplane! :)

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/whcsec2.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/4219569.html

[lnuss]

You pique my curiosity on a couple of points. If distance separation minimums are based on such things as wake turbulence and how much time aircraft need to react and safely avoid collisions, as well as time to set up for landing gaps, then how can more precise positioning "pack the air traffic a lot closer?" More precise? By what, 5, 10 or 30 feet? Won't make much difference.

The second point I'm curious about is how more precise positioning can overcome the lack of runways, and the scheduling by airlines to have many, many flights arrive and depart simultaneously?

In spite of the airline propaganda to the contrary, the bottlenecks are generally in airport areas (airline hubs, that is), and the system could handle a LOT more aircraft if there were more runways for takeoff and landing (along with instrument approaches, and all that goes with it).

For example, there are certain times when Denver International has plenty of backups, (though it's not as bad as many other major fields), yet Centennial, Jeffco (now Metro) and Front Range could handle more traffic. But the airlines go to DIA, and general aviation goes to the other three. The situation is similar (and often more backed up) in other major metro areas, with G.A. airports well under capacity.

The FAA propaganda is primarily aimed at trying to get a new funding mechanism (giving the airlines a tax break, while charging G.A. individuals more) along with getting away from congressional control. And, the proposed changes won't increase capacity to speak of, though there may be a few benefits to the "new" system that would use GPS (Capstone has been tried in Alaska for some time, and while it's an improved system, it's not because it's "more precise" -- it's because it covers areas that radar doesn't).

Try reading http://www.aopa.org/ and http://eaa.org/ on the subject. You'll come away with information from a rather different viewpoint. http://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/ is a good overview, and http://eaa.org/communications/eaanew..._userfees.html should help, as well.
[HR]
http://home.comcast.net/~lfn3/Cub_Pix/LarryCub03_s.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~lfn3/Peg_Ab...590Mklfn_s.jpg
Larry N.

[BushPilot]

<sarcasm>
Why doesn't the airlines just announce fake departure times? For example, if airport KABC has an average delay of 1 hour and flight departure time is scheduled for 10:00 AM just print offical departure time as 11:00 AM instead of 10:00 AM. This way flights will always be on time and no angry passengers!
</sarcasm>

I support AOPA all the way by making a financial contribution every year. I just don't want General Aviation in the United States to be as expensive as in Europe or elsewhere.

[angels355]

Hi Larry,

Thanks for the articles I'll read them as soon as I can. Your feedback really raises some important questions. Obviously with your long years of flying you're more of an expert than I am. I'm thrilled that the FAA is implementing this new ATC system because ATC has been long overdue for an upgrade while the FAA states themselves that volume routinely exceeds capacity as I mentioned above. I completely agree with you regarding runways and hubs. KSEA is in the middle of building a third runway which many people didn't want, obviously I wanted it. SW airlines for a while was interested in having a hub at nearby KBFI as they were not happy with the high cost of the hub at KSEA. My Capt. friend said that KBFI was plenty big enough, that would have been the nice thing about it, it's a lesser airport that has plenty of runway length, nearly 10,000 feet, it would have been a great idea. I think that KBFI has little or no major commercial traffic or hub customers, I think only cargo, private jets, maybe some regional carriers, I'm not sure. Unlike KBUR, or KMDW, where they do have commercial traffic, especially KMDW which has very heavy commercial traffic but only as runways from 3856 to 6519 feet. The short runways at KMDW have played a big role in some accidents there. If these great, heavy volume smaller commercial fields could have their runways lengthened that would be great, it would make common sense to me. I think that the FAA should study our inventory of airports to manage these resources better. It's ridiculous that KBFI is so extremely under utilized by commercial carriers. Also they could reopen some closed airports, such as the airport Howard Hughes made somewhat famous as his start/stop point in his round the world flight of 1936, CGAS. That seems like a nice airport if you ask me, could be used for general aviation and/or perhaps private jets.

I like this new coming GPS system because, as a scientist I like precision much better. I hope that there are no accidents by packing the aircraft closer together in the air as even a Learjet will flip on it's back if it gets too close to a heavy's wake turbulence. And one pilot explained to me that one difference between our simulators and the real world is that, when you're flying around in a Cessna 150, and you see heavies in your area, you don't think oh big deal or nice livery as you might say in the sim, but in the real world a Cessna 150 pilot goes way out of the way to avoid the wake turbulence or jet wash of a heavy because, that can actually kill you, as the pilot explained.

What I'm really excited about with a new GPS system is that over the major oceans, Atlantic and Pacific, we'll have positive ATC coverage. Only a few years ago, there was so little positive control of the airspace over the Atlantic that it was really scary. I understand it has improved lately, but before, back I believe when 9-11 happened, control of that airspace was really rudimentary. For example on 9-11, if I remember the (History Channel?) documentary on 9-11 correctly, there was an airliner who decided to turn back to Europe over the Atlantic, unfortunately he was heading for another airliner head on without knowing it. As quickly as they could special ATC people who handle trans Atlantic ATC sent out a ridiculously rudimentary fax signal I believe it was to that aircraft. Fortunately they received it and changed altitude in time, however ATC had to wait a considerable amount of time to learn whether their message was even received or not. Such a situation is beyond comprehension even back then. With the new GPS syetem that will not happen again, thank God.

Perhaps one thing that greater precision with GPS will give is more positive information on the precise location of aircraft, as perhaps, I'm guessing, with the old radar system they could be less positive, so therefore they were more hesitant in giving aircraft the go ahead to land or depart? Perhaps knowing the precise location of all aircraft in the air would allow them to have more confidence in giving clearance so in that sense it might increase the flow of traffic?

But I think you're very correct, GPS is a techno marvel, I'd like it in place asap because of it's obvious benefits, however this new system can not be used to gloss over some really glaring problems at our airports w/ regards to lack of hubs, and runways. The FAA says that cars have GPS now, and it's so beneficial, but I've commuted in some of the most congested traffic in the country. I learned that if I didn't watch my watch closely, and get on the freeway at or before 1430 hrs, that routinely the traffic would be so congested that it is a common situation to cover approximately 10 miles at FIVE MPH!! You have to have a really good engine cooling system and a good radio in that case. It doesn't matter how much you turn the dials on your GPS instrument, it's not going to clear away routine 10 mile long gridlock. Have you ever experienced traffic like that? Over here, that is routine, and you have to drive carefully there because you'll be blazing away at 60 MPH and come around a blind freeway curve, then all of a sudden you've got to be on the brakes fast because there's a wall of unmoving gridlock in front of you. It doesn't matter if it's a broken down Toyota, or a $200,000 Porsche Turbo with all the extras including GPS, traffic is not moving any quicker due to any high tech or extra feature. Neither high tech engineering of the car, horsepower, GPS, latte, is going to improve traffic, when it's gridlocked, it's gridlocked.

So when the FAA spokesperson says that our system is at capacity, and routinely exceeds capacity, I think they better start studying what they can do in addition to GPS for a real solution to gridlock. For example some might have you believe that Vista and Office 2007 would greatly improve productivity, while I admit some of the extra tools in Office 2007 might really be helpful, on the other hand, on both Vista/Word 2007 and Win 98SE/Word 97, either way I'm still only going to be able to type 60 to 85/90 words per minute depending on how awake I am. Win 98SE/Word 97 might even be faster due to less software bloat.

But I think that GPS is a very vital ATC system to have. I think it has very solid benefits to ATC. But that can not be where the improvement efforts stop. Judging by how awful it has become to fly in comparison to 40 years ago, I hope the FAA does not have blinders on, and I hope they get to work on a comprehensive program to improve air traffic. And in the future with for example the boom in Very Light Jet carriers, the skies are going to be swarming! Not to mention traffic from Asia and China. Did you know that in China, they use 747's filled to capacity for short hops like 200 NM's? That according to one of our world travelers on this forum. And that is with China at it's lesser level of industry development, they are expanding their industries and economy extremely fast, but they have not come close to peaking yet, when their industry and economy reach it's peak I think we'll be living in an entirely different world. Ironically this may have been caused by Communism, which wiped out all religion. When our explorers were very rudimentary, China was very powerful with a large fleet of ships plus gunpowder, however according to tecno historian James Burke (Scientific American former columnist; host of the series "Connections"), we are all NOT speaking Chinese because of China's religion of peace back then called Tao! If it were not for Tao, we would all be speaking Chinese. Communism removed all religion, so I don't think there is any such restraint now. Ni hao ma? Wo shu hao! Just practicing. It's too bad that terrorists could not take up the religion of Tao, they might see the errors of their way and be at peace with the world.

I think GPS is a vital improvement, but I don't think it can come close to candy coating the glaring air traffic problems we have due to lack of hubs, airports, runways, and under utilized fields. That has got to change soon, if we've got great airports like KBFI with a 10,000 foot runway, we should be using it for commercial traffic. ATC between KSEA and KBFI would have to coordinate because these two airports seem like they are almost on top of each other, but I think that problem can easily be managed, as if KBFI were simply an extension of KSEA. Airports like KBUR, and KMDW I think should have their runways lengthened.

Generally speaking, I think we have a lot of infrastructure problems here in America. Boeing and everyone else seems to insist that medium sized aircraft with long range capability is the way of the future. But it has been my opinion, that in a world where China uses 747's filled to capacity as a regional carrier plane, I think the future is in 747-8's and A380's. I think more superheavies would be a greater inconvenience to individual passengers, but I think they might reduce the number of flights required to handle passenger traffic volumes. More mass transit, less convenience.

The strange thing about all this is that the airline pilots are getting the short end of the stick. No retirement, less pay, longer hours, less pleasant working conditions. It seems to me that pilots are carrying too much of the burden in today's airline industry.

What do you think?

[lnuss]

Once again, from the standpoint of ATC, GPS isn't going to improve things because of a difference in precision. It will transfer some of the infrastructure from the ground to the aircraft, and it will (when reception is adequate) provide coverage in some areas where radar doesn't currently cover. But the big thing is aircraft transmitting data to OTHER AIRCRAFT in the same area, not to ATC (although the same data will often be transmitted to ATC, and they can use it in lieu of radar). http://www.aopa.org/pilot/features/future0010.html is a link to some info on AOPA's site about Capstone, or ADS-B (it stands for Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast), which is what the FAA's proposed "new" system is taken from.

There are several other items on AOPA's website for members only, so I won't post links here, but members can just search for Capstone or ADS-B.

The FAA site about Capstone is http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...rams/capstone/
but be careful to separate the hype from the facts -- there's some of each.

[HR]
http://home.comcast.net/~lfn3/Cub_Pix/LarryCub03_s.jpg http://home.comcast.net/~lfn3/Peg_Ab...590Mklfn_s.jpg
Larry N.

[RyanbATC]

hmmmm...

I hope this makes my job easier but somehow I think it will make it more difficult....at least at first

Like Larry said, there are a few things that worry me...

Wake turbulence:

Heavies are still heavies whether they are radar vectored or GPS "vectored" hehe.... how to separate??

Point to Point ie Direct routing:
Lots of little VLJ's and corp guys wanting to go direct will add stress to the system. We'll see what happens!

Increased traffic:
Don't forget about us controllers....hehe...and you know we had pay cuts too, right? ;)