Trains.com

Trump's Air Traffic Control plan

8586 views
70 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
RME
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • 2,073 posts
Posted by RME on Monday, June 12, 2017 3:14 PM

tree68
ICYMI - It's the punchline for a genie joke...

And a funny, and appropriate one in this context, too... except for

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 24,873 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, June 12, 2017 12:00 PM

Euclid
It doesn't matter as long as it is privately run for profit.

ICYMI - It's the punchline for a genie joke...

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,148 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, June 12, 2017 11:40 AM

tree68
 
Euclid
Either that or he should forget about this complicated dream and start with something simple like fixing healthcare or the economy.   

 

So, how many lanes do you want on this bridge?

 

It doesn't matter as long as it is privately run for profit.

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Monday, June 12, 2017 11:29 AM

Exactly, to both of the previous two posts. All types of surface transportation have limitations that are non-existent in aviation. The somewhat finate limitation of airports being the exception. And that exception is the biggest fly in the ointment.

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,324 posts
Posted by rdamon on Monday, June 12, 2017 10:58 AM
And add accuracy on dealing with multiple parallel tracks.

 

I remember a discussion on PTC getting confused in the 3D space on the Tehachapi loop.
  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Monday, June 12, 2017 10:08 AM

BLS53

ATC should be easier than RR's, because you're basically dealing with movable points in space. 

ATC is a much better application for GPS technology than PTC for a couple of reasons:

1) The minimum separation between planes is nominally 500 feet in the vertical direction and larger in the horizontal direction. 500 feet comes from IFR using 1000 foot flight levels (e.g. 10,000', 11,000') while VFR uses the 500 foot flight levels (e.g. 5,500', 6,500'). Minimum separation on PTC is on the order of 15' (track spacing).

2) Airplanes flying IFR (i.e. using ATC) are above the terrain and thus have multiple satellites in view at all times.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,834 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Monday, June 12, 2017 8:42 AM

Euclid

I think the people who sell technology have gotten Trump’s ear on this dream of fixing the air traffic control system.  Maybe they can provide the perfect intelligence machine that Trump is going to need in order to figure out how to make the dream a reality.    

good  points ====  The present efforts have been ongoing for 10+ years.  One item that has been very effective is the airborne collision avoidance system.  (TCAS) Development started in 1985 and first approval happened by 1990.  However TCAS-2 was not completely operational until the 2000s. 

Why does it work ?  It is airplane based that receives all transponder returns in a 50 mile space with the transponders all giving their altitudes.  Fairly simple calculations tell  receiving aircraft if any returns are a threat.

That is what the ground based ATC system does with the aid of controllers.  But then all the restrictions of airspace come in plus preferred routes to any destination, altitudes restrictions, aircraft performance, ( every aircraft type and some sub types behave differently.  As often stated it is Spock's 3 dimensional chess game that pieces keep moving around without players directions.  Then throw in weather problems of CBs that airplanes need to avoid.

All in all  a programer's nightmare.

EDIT.  What is worse is that it is not one programer's nightmare but 1000 who despite all efforts do not all talk the same language to others.  Imagine an Indian, Pakaistanian, chineese, Japaneese, Brit, French, USA different locations all trying to program the same and make interfaces work ? ?

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 24,873 posts
Posted by tree68 on Monday, June 12, 2017 7:52 AM

Euclid
Either that or he should forget about this complicated dream and start with something simple like fixing healthcare or the economy.   

So, how many lanes do you want on this bridge?

LarryWhistling
Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) 
Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you
My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date
Come ride the rails with me!
There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,148 posts
Posted by Euclid on Monday, June 12, 2017 7:42 AM

I think the people who sell technology have gotten Trump’s ear on this dream of fixing the air traffic control system.  Maybe they can provide the perfect intelligence machine that Trump is going to need in order to figure out how to make the dream a reality.  Either that or he should forget about this complicated dream and start with something simple like fixing healthcare or the economy.   

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,839 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Monday, June 12, 2017 3:55 AM

Buslist
and how do the machines learn to write code?

Well somewhat the same way humans do via Artificial Intelligence but here is the twist, once they learn how to do something the machine can teach to another machine without a lot of human intervention now (ie: no human intervention at some point in the future).

For those that are unfamiliar artificial intelligence can be best explained in laymans terms by a series of statisitical decision trees the computer has to negotiate logically.  While it is learning it is going down the path the first time and doesn't know the outcome of each decision after learned it knows somewhat the outcome should be but if the outcome deviates it modifies the decision tree and marks it's decision for next time.    So that is a somewhat crude explanation of how AI works.    There is more to it than that.   The more the machine learns the better it becomes at making it's own decisions.

When the machine becomes self aware is far beyond my knowledge base though not sure how that happens or if it is just myth.

  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Sunday, June 11, 2017 2:27 PM

Delta's the only outlier among the four majors. 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Sunday, June 11, 2017 2:12 PM

Norm


  • Member since
    August 2009
  • 322 posts
Posted by BLS53 on Sunday, June 11, 2017 10:10 AM

ATC should be easier than RR's, because you're basically dealing with movable points in space. 

The ATC roadblocks mostly deal with equipment at the FAA's end. The technology exist in many, if not most, aircraft in the system already. 

Stripped to the basics, this stuff is just a car GPS designed to operate in four dimensions, and built to a much higher standard of certification. The FAA just can't decide how much to spend, who to spend it with, and how to design the airspace to make it all work.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,834 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Sunday, June 11, 2017 3:30 AM

n012944

  It was so bad that it was shut down on the Chicago area desks, as it melted down the territories, and as far as I know has not been brought back into use in the Chicago area. 

Stand corrrected thanks

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Sunday, June 11, 2017 12:56 AM

erikem

One thing that concerns me about both the next gen ATC and the up and coming PTC. There will be a strong incentive to use commercial off the shelf (COTS) hardware (i.e. PC's). While it is possible to migrate the software to newer hardware platforms, there's a risk that assumptions about the underlying hardware can lead to some very unpleasant surprises.

 

FRA's risk analysis proceedure for PTC applications should go a long way to reduce this problem.

  • Member since
    November 2013
  • 1,097 posts
Posted by Buslist on Sunday, June 11, 2017 12:51 AM

CMStPnP

 

 
blue streak 1
The main problem of ATC going into next gen is the persons hired to write the computer code.  Using persons who do not understand the nuances is a waste but what person worth his salt for programing would work for the peanuts of a government job.

 

As we move into the future, more and more computer code is generated by machine vs. written by people.   The model will eventually be that computer code is generated entirely by machines as they need to resolve problems.   One reason why you see the stock of IRBT taking off like a rocket ship to Mars is that labor automation is also accelerating along with computer code generation.

 

and how do the machines learn to write code?

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,930 posts
Posted by erikem on Sunday, June 11, 2017 12:01 AM

blue streak 1

The main problem of ATC going into next gen is the persons hired to write the computer code.  Using persons who do not understand the nuances is a waste but what person worth his salt for programing would work for the peanuts of a government job.

Another industry that had programing problems is the RR industry and PTC.  Denver cannot get its "A" line working yet. Also remember NS and it great trip optimizer. 

 

The original ATC code was presumably written by veterans of the Semi-Automatic Ground Environment (SAGE) program. Don't think there has been any equivalent training ground since then.

I would think PTC would be an even tougher nut to crack than ATC. With ATC there is a lot of experience with existing code and the incremental changes since the original ATC inplmentations came into being. I remember the issue that BART went through in the first few years of operation.

One thing that concerns me about both the next gen ATC and the up and coming PTC. There will be a strong incentive to use commercial off the shelf (COTS) hardware (i.e. PC's). While it is possible to migrate the software to newer hardware platforms, there's a risk that assumptions about the underlying hardware can lead to some very unpleasant surprises.

  • Member since
    June 2009
  • From: Dallas, TX
  • 6,839 posts
Posted by CMStPnP on Saturday, June 10, 2017 9:41 PM

blue streak 1
The main problem of ATC going into next gen is the persons hired to write the computer code.  Using persons who do not understand the nuances is a waste but what person worth his salt for programing would work for the peanuts of a government job.

As we move into the future, more and more computer code is generated by machine vs. written by people.   The model will eventually be that computer code is generated entirely by machines as they need to resolve problems.   One reason why you see the stock of IRBT taking off like a rocket ship to Mars is that labor automation is also accelerating along with computer code generation.

  • Member since
    August 2004
  • From: The 17th hole at TPC
  • 2,260 posts
Posted by n012944 on Saturday, June 10, 2017 9:40 PM

blue streak 1
Also remember NS and it great trip optimizer. 
 

Trip optimizer is a GE thing, you are thinking of NS's movement planner.  Worthless form what I understand from people who have used it in the field.  It was so bad that it was shut down on the Chicago area desks, as it melted down the territories, and as far as I know has not been brought back into use in the Chicago area.

An "expensive model collector"

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,834 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, June 10, 2017 9:10 PM

The main problem of ATC going into next gen is the persons hired to write the computer code.  Using persons who do not understand the nuances is a waste but what person worth his salt for programing would work for the peanuts of a government job.

Another industry that had programing problems is the RR industry and PTC.  Denver cannot get its "A" line working yet. Also remember NS and it great trip optimizer. Edit trip  planner

  • Member since
    August 2005
  • From: At the Crossroads of the West
  • 11,013 posts
Posted by Deggesty on Saturday, June 10, 2017 8:56 PM

ATSFGuy

It should be the other way around, railroads are taxed unfairly,

why don't roadways and waterways have to pay?

 

Who owns the roadways and waterways?

Johnny

  • Member since
    November 2015
  • 1,340 posts
Posted by ATSFGuy on Saturday, June 10, 2017 8:43 PM

It should be the other way around, railroads are taxed unfairly,

why don't roadways and waterways have to pay?

  • Member since
    January 2014
  • 8,148 posts
Posted by Euclid on Saturday, June 10, 2017 9:04 AM

Every time privatization is floated, the defenders of the public sector tell us that privatization will raise the cost due to the profit and greed of the corporations involved in the privatization.  To the champions of the public sector, profit is the bullseye of objection because it the fundamental lynchpin that separates the public and private sectors.  Profit is portrayed as the way the rich steals from the poor.   

Therefore, I suspect the “non-profit” model has been attached to this privatization proposal to make it sound more palatable to those who would attack it explicitly because of its profitmaking component.  It is just like saying that we shall use private investment to fund infrastructure improvements so we don’t have to worry about wasting our money in government boondoggles. 

  • Member since
    July 2006
  • 9,610 posts
Posted by schlimm on Friday, June 9, 2017 11:02 PM

JPS1
According to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AAFT) Fact Sheet, in 2016 AAFT revenues were $14.4 billion.  Taxes levied on the transportation of passengers (ticket taxes and fees) were $9.9 billion or 68.8 percent of AAFT revenues.  Use of international air facilities accounted for another $3.4 billion or 22.9 percent.  Other revenues, which ranged from $15 to $476 million, included Liquid Fuel used in a Fractional Ownership Flight, Aviation Gasoline, Aviation Fuel Other than Gas Non-commercial, Aviation Fuel Commercial, and Transportation of property.   In 2016 AAFT provided 87.8 percent of the FAA’s revenues, which was down from 92.8 percent in 2015 but up from 80.1 percent in 2014.  The differences were made up by transfers from the General Fund, which was approximately $2 billion in 2016, $1.1 billion in 2015, and $3.2 billion in 2014.    Of the $9.9 billion required for operations (mostly towers and centers) in 2016, $7.9 billion or 80 percent was provided by AAFT and $2 billion or approximately 20 percent came from the General Fund.  Other major outlays included $2.6 billion for facility construction and maintenance, $3.3 billion for grants in aid for airports, and $166 million for research, engineering, and development.   

Thanks for the facts.

C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan

  • Member since
    February 2016
  • From: Texas
  • 1,537 posts
Posted by PJS1 on Friday, June 9, 2017 4:53 PM

Norm48327

 

CMStPnP
Vern Moore

It should be because I do not see that it costs a whole lot to operate.   Still would rather have the airlines pay directly for it and manage it than the Feds.  Get it off the Federal Budget.    The more transportation items they can offload to become privately operated and funded the better off we all are and the more equitable our transportation system becomes.

Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Friday, June 9, 2017 4:51 PM

Phoebe Vet

Do you realize that Airlines are a small part of aviation traffic?  The increased costs are just an annoyance to them, they can pass them on the the passengers.  The increased costs will be a major burden on private pilots, corporate flight departments, air ambulance services, police aviation units, and the 11,000 small public use airports.  Expect many small towns to lose their airports.  Most UPS and FedEx packages move by air as to several smaller companies.

Non profit is an oxymoron.  There are no stock holders collecting dividends, but all the rest of the costs of running a major corporation are there and there is no limit on how much executives, directors, and senior management can be paid.

The red tape and bureauracy being blamed for slow upgrades are just another label for money.  Money for upgrades does not magicaly appear when the entity becomes private.  Look at the huge costs to taxpayers when schools are turned over to for profit companies or when roads suddenly become toll roads run by a private company.

Your opinion is noted but taken with a grain or pound of of salt. Plase tell me more when you understand ATC and it's nuances. Have you been in the air as a pilot and dealt with ATC? I have.  There is no red tape between controllers and aircraft, just positive communications. Tell me again how well you are versed in the subject. I find it ridiculous to discuss the differences between rail traffic control and aircraft traffic control. They are two totally different subjects.

Norm


  • Member since
    September 2007
  • From: Charlotte, NC
  • 6,099 posts
Posted by Phoebe Vet on Friday, June 9, 2017 4:35 PM

Do you realize that Airlines are a small part of aviation traffic?  The increased costs are just an annoyance to them, they can pass them on the the passengers.  The increased costs will be a major burden on private pilots, corporate flight departments, air ambulance services, police aviation units, and the 11,000 small public use airports.  Expect many small towns to lose their airports.  Most UPS and FedEx packages move by air as to several smaller companies.

Non profit is an oxymoron.  There are no stock holders collecting dividends, but all the rest of the costs of running a major corporation are there and there is no limit on how much executives, directors, and senior management can be paid.

The red tape and bureauracy being blamed for slow upgrades are just another label for money.  Money for upgrades does not magicaly appear when the entity becomes private.  Look at the huge costs to taxpayers when schools are turned over to for profit companies or when roads suddenly become toll roads run by a private company.

Dave

Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Friday, June 9, 2017 2:59 PM

CMStPnP
Vern Moore

It should be because I do not see that it costs a whole lot to operate.   Still would rather have the airlines pay directly for it and manage it than the Feds.  Get it off the Federal Budget.    The more transportation items they can offload to become privately operated and funded the better off we all are and the more equitable our transportation system becomes.

You don't know the half of it. Users do contribute to a degree through fuel taxes, landing fees, and other gotchas well hidden from public scrutiny. Given their fuel consumption, the airlines contribute a huge portion. However, those fees come nowhere near funding the system in it's entirety so your tax dollars contribute more than you realize. Taxes passengers pay also contribute a miniscule amount.

Beyond the immediate cost of controllers and their pay and benefits are the generous retirement program they enjoy including lifetime health care benefits that are taxpayer funded and some items I likely don't know about because they are above my pay grade.It's a great job if you can handle the stress and want to retire at 60. That's the maximum age for controllers but given the controller shortage some have been called back to work as supervisors.

Then there are the costs of maintaining the infrastructure. Most towers, enroute facilities, approach control, radar, (Can't throw in flight service. That was contracted to Lockheed Martin years ago and has saved money in the long run.)and other facilities are not going to magically disappear by getting the controllers out of the federal feeding trough. All those facilities including airports have to be maintained to FAA standards. Some of those facilities such as VOR's (VHF OmniRange transmitters) are becoming obsolete as GPS and the related equipment in airplanes becomes more accurate. Times are-a-changin'.

Bottom line: There are costs that are, for the forseeable future, unavoidable. To totally revamp the system will take years and given that they want to protect teir jobs  the FAA will be leading the opposition to change.

Railroad executives would be tickled pink if they received the subsidies the air traffic, both airline and General Aviation receive.

My qualifications? Thirty years in the aviation industry.

 

Norm


  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,324 posts
Posted by rdamon on Friday, June 9, 2017 1:20 PM
I expect a fierce fight from the General Aviation community. 

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy