A few days ago Wendover Productions released a video that takes a London to Frankfurt flight as an example to show how air traffic control works. Maastricht Upper Area mentioned in the article is where most of the flight takes place. Video link: https://youtu.be/C1f2GwWLB3k?t=8
Radio frequency congestion is a major issue in throughput. One of the many issues at La Guardia in NYC is being able to even get a word in to let ATC know you’re ready to taxi. Aircraft are sitting on the ramp waiting to move and in turn aircraft that have landed are waiting to park because the outbound aircraft can’t get out of the way because they can’t get clearance to taxi. It’s a major pain.
Last week I witnessed first hand how enroute frequencies are jammed as well. Flying in and out of Atlanta as severe thunderstorms surrounded the arrival corridor aircraft were diverting everywhere. You could hardly get a word in in time to tell them you were diverting around the storms.
Hopefully CPDLC will alleviate some of this. Something certainly needs to change.
Isn't radio an "old system" ripe for change? The cellular network accommodates millions of users in a space the size of Manhattan. Why do airplanes need to use a channel with such narrow throughput?
Also, voice uses far, far more bandwidth than text.
>And those will be less of a problem after 1/3 of aircraft turn into pumpkins when they "forget" to do the mandatory ADS-B installation this year.
Explain? Are 1/3 of planes not going to get ADS-B installed, and therefore can't fly? Are these commerical planes? If so, are businesses really this incompetent?
Did we read the same article? One of the problems specifically mentioned about old ATC systems is that they rely on voice communication while text messages would be more efficient.
Have a digital frequency for routine communication: like authorization to taxi, take off, clearances, flight plans, pattern requests, confirmations, and traffic. Keep an analog frequency for communicating through emergencies (kind of like Guard).
Sometimes dangerous situations are averted by pilots realising the controller had made an error, like clearing a plane to cross a runway while another is taking off [0]
This kind of thing might be much harder to catch if clearances are given in text, or even impossible if they are routed only to the specific aircraft.
These vested interest blocks are mostly based around airlines who pay fuel taxes for these systems and would like all of ATC to move from government to contractors.
Currently, the FAA does a lot of work to make sure that the pilots of smaller, older aircraft can still use the system well.
Interesting: in America, a tentative proposal to split air-traffic-control services from the faa into a separate entity, as in the rest of the developed world, was last year grounded in Congress. Although big airlines, airports and controller unions supported the proposals, the business-aviation lobby opposed them, worried that private jets might eventually be forced to pay for the air-traffic services they currently get free, thanks to American taxpayers.
Aviation fuel taxes currently pay for ATC funding to a large degree. It’s more nuanced than a bunch of private planes congesting the skies not paying their fair share.
One of my biggest concerns about a privatized system is the effects it could have on the bottom end of general aviation. The very low end of people flying around in small Cessnas tends to be more cost sensitive. What happens to safety when they start acting in ways to avoid ATC fees in order to keep flying?
Can I just say that the privatized ATC in Europe has very little affect on smaller GA planes. Maastrich generally controls 1000ASL and above which is much higher than the typical Cessna will fly.
Is that feet or meters? Because 1000 feet ASL was the altitude at which it was mandatory for me to start preparing for landing in a glider. 1000m ASL is perfectly normal altitude, unless you're purposefully avoiding ATC interaction by staying under 300m which is dangerous.
In flight speak height is measured in 100s of feet and distance in nautical miles. For example a 747 will reach cruising altitude at FL370 (37000ft) but another plane may be FL360 (36000ft).
"Flight speak" depends on multiple details that are not always obvious. For example, "feets" for altitude are "temporary allowance" and in many places are used only because of the influx of cheap US-made hardware.
Flight Levels are actually not specified in meters nor feet, but in air pressure, so that if everyone has altimeters on the same "zero" pressure they will be able to communicate their flight level perfectly.
Nautical Miles are used because unlike feet, they actually make sense.
Fee to get a weather brief? Guess I’ll skip that today. Fee to file a flight plan? Guess I’ll skip that and nobody will know where I am when I don’t show up at my destination. Fee to talk to ATC? Guess I’ll just stay low altitude weaving in and out of clouds. Hope there aren’t any towers or traffic.
You can see where avoiding fees might lead to taking greater risks.
