
Old systems can't cope with congested skies, vested interests block reform - blue_devil
https://www.economist.com/international/2019/06/15/air-traffic-control-is-a-mess
======
mopsi
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](https://youtu.be/C1f2GwWLB3k?t=8)

------
supermanfan
> old systems can't cope

Actually "old systems" aren't the bottleneck.

It's limited gates and radio frequency time.

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.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillan...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_dependent_surveillance_%E2%80%93_broadcast)

~~~
bronco21016
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.

~~~
Jeff_Brown
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.

~~~
p_l
The simple system is reliable, has certain anti-locking behaviors, and doesn't
depend on complex electronics while being obvious if jamming happens

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/tyvol](http://archive.is/tyvol)

------
inamberclad
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.

------
danmaz74
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.

~~~
bronco21016
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?

~~~
yardie
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.

~~~
p_l
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.

~~~
yardie
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).

~~~
p_l
"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.

