and it would make my job a lot easier if nobody wanted to avoid anything. 1% of the time, try probably 20% of days on average I'd guess throughout the year, or indeed weeks on end depending on the season.
Not Long Now,
I apologise if my post seemed flippant and I do recognise that there are limitations to the automation of the system. I do find the figure of 20% a bit suprising. In a previous life one of my tasks was to liaise with ATC regarding any departures from planned tracks due to weather, so that we could respond to enquiries from the public and passengers, so I do have a little feel for the situation.
The data and presentations that I saw from the P-RNAV trial didn't seem to suggest that weather avoidance was a major stumbling block to the introduction of such a system. The only weather-related issue I recall was to do with out-of-limits w/v.
I still maintain that not nearly enough investment has been made in improvements to procedures through automation both in the TMA and most especially in the treatment of aircraft spacing during periods of low visibility. Please consider how improved automation of railway signalling over the past 150 years has made that system vastly safer. The Docklands Light Railway is entirely automated - no drivers at all and I don't recall having heard of a single signalling-induced accident.
TOO