Automation in ATC [Archive]

NewModelATC

23rd Jun 2005, 13:12

Widger,

Thanks for taking the trouble to look at the site. You may know me if you've worked at Hurn. There has been some truly excellent work done on FACTS but there has always been the need for other components to make up a full complement of tools for a future Flight Data Processing System. My proposal is for an integrated and unified ATC solution that removes the need for such separate tools and provides other benefits. The New Model works the same way from ground movement to oceanic and is so simple to understand that a beginner can operate it. It tackles the problem of failure by providing multiple independent processors. It keeps the controller in the loop. If there is a failure that knocks out a processor and the database then another processor can be used. The new traffic solution might not be identical to the old one but it will be workable and safe. Looked at from the right perspective we just don’t need strips any more. And conflict tools can’t manage flows or provide insights into timely route optimisations to save fuel. The New Model really does work but I’ll happily address any specific questions posed in this thread.

BDiONU

23rd Jun 2005, 18:05

Similar to iFACTS but good luck in your lone endeavours ;)

BD

Lon More

23rd Jun 2005, 21:24

Widger FYI paperless systems have been in use for a very long time. At Maastricht, for example, since the late 1980s.

Ongoing development work at Bretigny s. Orge parallels a lot of what I saw on NewModelATC's site during a quick browse through, However after more than 35 years in ATC, quite a few spent in the development of systems, I tend to shudder and move on when someone says their arguments are irrefutable or that theirs is the only way forward.

I remember endless arguments between ATCA in the States and a pilot who was convinced his vision of Free Flight was the only way to go. (Scott Voigt knows lot more about this:ok: )

Controllers are a very conservative group, so if you are looking for support I suggest you remove some of the polemic statements if you are soliciting their support

PPRuNe Radar

23rd Jun 2005, 21:44

I remember endless arguments between ATCA in the States and a pilot who was convinced his vision of Free Flight was the only way to go. (Scott Voigt knows lot more about this )

Whatever happened to Captain Michael Baiada ? :)

Scott Voigt

24th Jun 2005, 02:47

Hopefully Biada is busy with something else or finally figured out we were right <G>...

As to paperless, in the US more than half the centers are more or less paperless with a conflict probe built in to the data display.

regards

Scott

Lon More

24th Jun 2005, 09:56

Thanks Scott , that was the guy. he used a considerable amount of bandwidth in various chatrooms. Usually along the lines of if the FAA give me x million dollars I can prove that it works

NewModelATC

24th Jun 2005, 10:16

Thank you to those who have taken the time to look at my site. BDiONU, I don’t think The New Model is really that similar to iFACTS. I have seen the reports from the FACTS work and I am aware of the background to the interim implementation. Is Rob W still responsible? For those that don’t know the work there’s a good outline at:

Airport International iFACTS Article (http://www.airport-int.com/article.asp?pubID=14&catID=480&artID=719)

The New Model differs in that conflicts are eliminated by the system as soon as they are detected so that only the best conflict-free RT advisories are presented to the controller. There are therefore no windows to look at and evaluate and no problems to solve. I have tried to explain the logic behind this on my website.

Lon More, yes, there is an overlap between Eurocontrol’s work and mine but did you see the illuminating quotes on the first page of my site? I have a lot of support from individual researchers whose names I must be discrete about. My apologies if my assertions are controversial. I just hope we are all searching for improvements to the system and that my ideas are a useful contribution to a public debate. Controllers are emailing me from as far away as the USA and Australia.

And Scott Voigt, as for Free Flight, I think it was a worthy proposal that failed because there was no credible evolutionary path by which its final goals could be reached. It depended on too much changing at once. I actually favour a ground-based ATC concept but that’s a discussion for another thread. The New Model can be implemented within a single sector or across a whole ATCC and the aircraft need never know. Therefore there is an obvious evolutionary path to the future with the New Model.

As a final thought for this post I believe that the new imperative for ATC (after safety) is to show that traffic is being handled optimally from an environmental point of view. That means that trajectories must now be planned and continuously adjusted by computers to minimise CO2 emissions. In the UK the train drivers and the firemen handled the transition from steam to electric and diesel traction rather poorly and our railways have been a disaster ever since. I have confidence that present day air traffic controllers will want to manage the transition to automation more competently.

Jerricho

24th Jun 2005, 11:54

traffic is being handled optimally from an environmental point of view

Funny you should mention this NewModel, as here in Canada, one of the latest mantras has been leaving aircraft on STARs for managed FMS approaches to every extent possible. There has even been one company (those working here will know who I am talking about) that have submitted for approval their own arrivals, all in an effort to obtain the most efficient use of their aircraft. All fine and dandy if they are the only aircraft in the sky, however in the middle of a sequence, it ain't gonna happen.

BDiONU

24th Jun 2005, 11:56

Rob W has been sacked and iFACTS has changed considerably from your days (assuming you're the person who set this up last year http://www.dmaviation.co.uk/atmmain.htm).
Lots of simulations have been run, lots of work is going on in NATS (in conjunction with Praxis).

BD

Widger

24th Jun 2005, 12:52

LonMore,

Maastricht may well not use paper, but they sure as hell do in the UK!

BDiONU

24th Jun 2005, 13:23

But yea olde days of paper strips in UK are numbered :D

BD

Widger

24th Jun 2005, 14:00

Is that destination 22?

That'll get the unions going!

have a nice wet weekend everyone....blammm! Crikey what was that?

BEXIL160

24th Jun 2005, 17:15

NewModel etc...

An interesting concept, and one worth studying in detail... but still only a concept.

Not sure about the statement "full time automation is the only way to go". Full time automation isn't always flexible enough. Most of time, yes, but not always. That's why there are still pilots on todays very automated flight decks.

Not sure about the weather avoidance FAQ either. Real time info on Cb activity is not always available, nor are individual pilot reactions to Cb activity (see the uk over the last few days).

Metering for TMA / airfield arrival streams. Hmmm.. there is such a wide variety of variables e.g. a/c performances, wind, wake vortex, rwy closures, preferential rwys (continue here for as long as you like) that I have difficulty seeing an automated system cope safely without human intervention . Which may be what you are getting at, but saying that full automation is the only way to go suggests otherwise.

And for those that allow it, what about VFR arrivals? How do they fit?

Don't get me wrong, there are some good ideas here and I am not Luddite enough to dismiss them out of hand.

Paperless operation in the UK? Yes, it will happen. Usual caviats though. Involve the end user at the BEGINING of the project, and get all the advice you can from those that are already without paper about the problems and advantages. Act on the advice / input.

Rgds BEX

NewModelATC

25th Jun 2005, 09:01

Bexil160,

Thanks for those constructive comments. I am indebted to you and others who have taken the time to visit my website. I believe the New Model does address all of the issues that you and others have raised. Naturally, any shortcomings in the explanations are entirely my responsibility. There is no sarcasm intended in that statement.

Full automation isn’t necessarily obvious but your analogy is almost perfect. I would have said a modern aircraft with autopilot, autoland, fly-by-wire controls, FMS, FADEC and so on is indeed fully automated in that the crew issue instructions and the system carries them out. In the same way the New Model will always require a human operator and even in the demonstrator there is the opportunity to ignore or override advisory instructions. However, I believe the New Model does represent the first ever proposal for an ATC tool where the system is expected to calculate the complete traffic solution. The demonstrator was produced to show that the algorithms are not particularly hard.

Some controllers feel that they may not be able to retain the mental ‘picture’ if they are not actually controlling the sector. My informal investigations show that, if anything, the mental picture is actually enhanced by monitoring a concise and complete list of RT advisories. The controller can then focus on any problem areas while the system continues to look after the more straightforward parts of the sector. It is part of the mathematics of the New Model to show that this independence is a property of a well designed piece of airspace.

For space reasons may I deal with metering, strips and VFR in a future post?

You also suggest crucially that the users should be consulted at the beginning of the project. I am sorry I may not have spoken to you personally but I have actually spent a great deal of time sitting with controllers and pilots. My managers opposed this approach. The New Model represents the fusion of what is needed, what is possible and what is wanted. Many controllers told me I was the first engineer who had ever come and asked them and I treasure the several friendships I have established.

But, if there are any controllers out there who feel they have not been heard why not post your requirements for a future ATC system here? This is one engineer who does want to listen. If a few appear and there is interest I will publish the essence of all the requirements that were expressed to me by practicing controllers and pilots over 30 years. That post will be shorter than this one.

Thanks again to everyone for taking time to look at this thread.

P.S. Would Bexil160 be a sector and a standing agreement?

Comte Roller

25th Jun 2005, 13:35

Hello,

a very interesting web site even though, to be honest, I didn't read everything.

Your model is similar to a french project called ERATO (En Route Air Traffic Organizer) that has been developped since the early 90's by The CENA.

http://www.tls.cena.fr/divisions/CCC/ERATO/?L=en
(web site in english but that page only in french).

PPRuNe Radar

25th Jun 2005, 15:10

However, I believe the New Model does represent the first ever proposal for an ATC tool where the system is expected to calculate the complete traffic solution.

I am sure I saw such a system at Bretigny Sur Orge in the mid 1990s. EURO ATC2000 or something it was called. Looked very impressive handling a traffic sample which was 400% higher than the maximum experienced in the demonstrated sector at the time. It was all a bit last minute though with all executions left to the last possible minute to ensure that the data it was number crunching was the most accurate and efficient possible. It had lots of climbs and descents to achieve separation rather than vectoring. There was also an Airbus sim next door where pilots 'flew' in the trial using datalink to receive their clearances.

I guess they must have found insurmountable difficulties since I have never heard anything more about the project.

055166k

26th Jun 2005, 23:13

The whole premise of this thread is based on a lie.
"everyone has agreed that full automation is the way forward"
Who is everyone:-
Employers that want to shed staff?
Manufacturers that want bucks?
Can't you people understand that sometimes the simple {and cheap } things work well......sorry there's not much profit in a paper strip.
How do I know?....I AM a controller, and I don't mean a "desk" either!
Whenever Mr Free-lunch meets Mr Expense-account we end up with the biggest bag of worms imaginable; just remember that although your tame rocket-scientist/brain-surgeon types nod furiously in agreement it will be the foot soldiers that have to make it work eventually.

Scott Voigt

27th Jun 2005, 04:35

New Model;

Yes I can see that the controller sitting there and overseeing can see more of what is going on, sort of like the handoff person who is not having to talk can generally see more of what is going on since they are not focusing on individual aircraft all the time, however the problem lies in not seeing all the traffic by being involved. It more of the problem of not being involved and STAYING involved in the traffic picture. In studies with both pilots and controllers, human factors folks have seen that we humans are TERRIBLE at keeping the picture on things when we aren't activly engaged in doing it. Just sitting and watching our attention wanders from time to time if we are not activly engaged in what is going on, which we aren't if we are just watching the machine do it. I see this as a huge problem in the future with the types of traffic levels we are talking about getting into.

Oh, earlier I gave you some places to go and talk with folks about human factors <G>. I just got back from doing some work with the FAA human factors folks... Boy are they doing some neat stuff <G>...

regards

Scott

NewModelATC

28th Jun 2005, 09:41

Compte Roller

Yes, The New Model draws on the conclusions of projects such as ERATO and CORA which propose advisory information. Many of us were exposed to these ideas and others during the production of the eFDP Requirement Set. The New Model was created because many of these projects were conceptually incomplete owing to their fixed terms of reference. The New Model acknowledges these projects as having demonstrated that the fundamental ideas of automation are sound.

PPRuNe Radar

I’m not sure exactly which system you are referring to. EATMS became ATM2000 but that was a very broad set of specifications. It is perfectly possible to run sectors at high capacities under simulated conditions. At ATMDC it has been shown that controllers can handle twice their normal workload without any tools at all. Of course, safety in the real world would not be guaranteed. I have run the New Model at three times the SWE sector capacity and four times current levels is not difficult to imagine if the VHF channel is simulated with near-perfect quality. There are no particular difficulties at all, never mind insurmountable ones. Just, at the moment, a lack of will.

055166k

In the USA, the UK and in Europe I believe that most people who are trying to improve ATC are looking at more rather than less automation. ANSPs that are arguably ahead of us (Nav Canada and Airways New Zealand) depend on automation. I am well aware that many projects can seem very badly formulated by the time the user is asked to take over. Unfortunately, there are users (you) and there are engineers (me) but both sides have their own managers with their own agendas. I think Swanwick (which does use some strips) proves that cheap strips do not lead to cheap systems. And, having worked for suppliers throughout Europe I can say for certain that a manufacturer loves nothing better than to sell an old system with a new badge. R&D costs money. But I’m listening, and the PPRuNe forum has enabled us to discuss these issues directly. The New Model for Air Traffic Control is not owned by anybody and I can be certain that it meets the requirements for Eurocontrol’s future European Flight Data Processing System. It is now in the public domain so that the end user (the controller) does have a chance to speak.

Scott Voigt

I’m pleased to see the US view expressed. I’m very aware of the human factors issues. At this stage I can only say that I have not identified an example of beneficial automation being rejected because of human factors. It is well know that crews go to sleep on the flightdeck. Supposedly ‘what’s it doing NOW’ is often heard on the voice recorder and the Cali B757 accident could be said to have been CAUSED by automation. In the UK our main railways are signalled fully automatically and train drivers have very little to do. Our worst accidents in recent times have come about because of the interface between the human being and the automated system. And yet, despite all of these problems, automation has actually increased the safety of our transport systems. I conclude that we will use more automation and that it is up to those of us who think we understand the issues to help in managing the risks.

Has anybody tried running the downloadable demonstrator? Has anybody noticed how little it would cost to build a small prototype network to cover the London TMA?

CUNIM

28th Jun 2005, 17:53

I have had a quick look at the concept, to be followed up with a more thoughtful look when I have a bit of time.
I was involved with EDDUS in 1983 until cancelled. The son of EDDUS is working operationally in Europe. We always involved the controllers and some 70% of the new design was theirs. The radar data block used in Bretigny was developed from EDDUS.
Just one initial thought. The system may be better for the addition of variable translucent windows and the ability to directly address traffic underlying the active window.

Scott Voigt

28th Jun 2005, 21:33

New Model;

One thing that I didn't mention that bears mentioning. One thing that I find in simulations that isn't taken into account is that things work much better in the sim <G>. Pilots always do what you tell them to do without question, and do it NOW! The planes all fly wonderfully and slow or speed up fast. They also make very nice turns and fairly quick turns. None of this is real. So it does make the simulation much easier. There is also almost never any weather in the sim to take advantage of chaos <<G>>. Until we do these things, we are not really testing the system in the real world.

regards

Scott

vector4fun

29th Jun 2005, 16:16

If I can tag on to Scott's reply...

I've seen lots of ideas on computer management of traffic for decades now. The general concept may work in an enroute environment where the vast majority of traffic is IFR with known, defined flight paths.

In the terminal environments where I've spent my career, I just see no way for a computer to anticipate all the user's needs. I want to see a computer than can anticipate where a pipeline patrol, police copter, medivac copter, sightseeing or VFR training flight will go next. How would a computer figure the trajectory of a T-38 that wants multiple approaches followed by a couple overhead patterns? How would a computer sequence an FMS equipped Boeing with a VHF nav/com only Cherokee or Cessna?

I guess the point being that even if a computer can separate and sequence to a point 30 miles from the airport, it doesn't solve the problem of getting the aircraft on and off a crowded runway, over a blocked taxiway, to an already occupied gate....

:confused:

Scott Voigt

29th Jun 2005, 18:12

Vector;

"I've seen lots of ideas on computer management of traffic for decades now. The general concept may work in an enroute environment where the vast majority of traffic is IFR with known, defined flight paths."

I see that you've never worked in a center <G>... Military folks doing strange stuff, practice approaches, students, photo ships etc... They are indeed not all on rails.

regards

Scott

vector4fun

29th Jun 2005, 20:00

I see that you've never worked in a center <G>... Military folks doing strange stuff, practice approaches, students, photo ships etc... They are indeed not all on rails.

Sorry Scott, didn't mean to imply that all Center sectors were that way, only that I could only imagine such a system working in that kind of sector. Where does that exist? Greenland? :p

NewModelATC

29th Jun 2005, 21:11

CUNIM,

I thought EDDUS was relatively successful for an ATC project. The system was originally proposed as single computer to replace NAS and the Locus 16s and to act as a common database for military and civil users. Echoes of the huge Linesman/Mediator project from the 1960s. The usual specification problems arose and a fairly major reorganisation left NAS in place and the minimalist EDDUS serving the new MASOR (military area services). NAS and EDDUS never spoke to each other but EDDUS was paperless from its introduction. Getting Tandem machines to talk to DEC machines was a nightmare. Does this fit your recollection? And as for translucent windows – absolutely! I just haven’t bothered at this stage for the demonstrator.

Scott Voigt,

Having worked on both sides of simulators I agree that the ‘perfect’ quality of the representation can give misleading results. In an earlier post I noted that a crystal clear voice channel could enable a 33 per cent increase in capacity. The New Model Demonstrator uses two weather and performance models. One is used for trajectory prediction and the other to drive the simulated aircraft. Tests have been conducted with large differences between the parameters in each model. The results match what one would expect for a stormy day; the overall traffic solution changes quite frequently but the next RT advisory is always a good one. I have studied noise and stochastic processes for military systems but I don’t think anyone will want to know more about the maths involved!

I can’t actually see any human factors links – did you intent to include some?

Vector4fun,

I haven’t forgotten the unusual traffic that makes up most of the difficulties in ATC. I was actually in TC observing when the aerial photographs were being taken for the multimap www.multimap.com database, mostly from 6,000 feet. The frenetic shouting across the room was quite something. Because all aircraft in controlled airspace must have a flightplan we can start with the assumption that the system is able to allocate airspace resources as necessary. Surveillance data and controller inputs will assist in making the allocation as efficient as possible. After that, the problem is simply one of testing possibilities and evaluating the results. And computers are now very, very good at doing that. The New Model Demonstrator completely recalculates a solution for the London TMA SWE sector with one new arrival per minute for the next 25 minutes in about one second. I can post again (or PM me) if you’d like a detailed explanation for your examples but for the moment could I just say that the calculations would be very similar to those performed at CFMU for slot allocation. For the approach sequencing part of the problem FAST here and in the USA is getting better all the time.

Scot and Vector,

OACC FDPS I and the new ATOP handle traffic automatically. The ocean has quite a lot going on, air-to-air refuelling, submarine hunting and air-sea rescue amongst other things. FDPS I operated both organised traffic and so-called random traffic. Even moving blocks of airspace could be reserved. It changed the tracks twice a day, handled supersonics as a matter of course and acquitted itself pretty well on the black day of 9/11. None of this is intended to take anything away from the hard working controllers. The New Model an honest attempt to offer something useful that builds on previous experience.
Flight International 10 May 2005:
ATC safety over Africa set to worsen as traffic increases
ALPA-SA President Captain Gawie van Rooyen
Anybody from Africa reading this thread and looking for a solution?

vector4fun

30th Jun 2005, 02:26

Because all aircraft in controlled airspace must have a flightplan we can start with the assumption that the system is able to allocate airspace resources as necessary.

This illustrates where we begin to differ. That may be true where you are, but it's absolutely not true in the U.S. I need not, and in fact, rarely do file a flight plan for VFR flights in the local area, whether it be controlled airspace or not. I must contact ATC in certain instances, but there is no requirement I file a VFR flight plan any time except for operations around D.C. and certain other Security zones. My only "plan" when departing in my Skyhawk often involves only heading a certain direction initially, and then I go where whim takes me. That's still possible in much of the U.S. (Thank God!) :ok:

I can assure you that I am far, far from being a "maverick" in this regard. VFR Flight Plans in the U.S. are pretty much strictly for SAR purposes only, and almost never are forwarded to ATC. They reside at the Flight Service Stations. I dare say most pilots I know do not file VFR flight plans for local flights. Only for cross-country flights, especially in thinly populated areas. Even then, it's usually not a requirement.

CUNIM

30th Jun 2005, 09:29

NewmodelATC

Yes the problem was probably too soon for the computers and displays at the time, but the success was due to the controllers having an input - I had the veto, but never used.

I will be away for a few days in Libya, but when I get back, I'll have a play with your concept. Funny to ask whether there was a possibility for a solution in Africa - I'll come back to that as I hope to be involved there.

Llamapoo

30th Jun 2005, 15:11

Not critiquing your solution NewModelATC, but as a Human Factors bod, I will address your comments about beneficial automation. Until we find some way to measure cognition AND account for variability between people, the Human Factors argument will never beat the accountants' arguments. As a consequence, a lot of ill-thought-out automation is developed and, worse, crippled by cutbacks during development (something you'll know about and be seeking to circumvent by presenting your model).

We need to stop automating or implementing technology for technology or automation's sake. Just because we can is not the reason we should. Until someone can demonstrate that a machine can apply knowledge flexibly to new problems, automation should support the human operator, not replace him/her.

Like I said though, I'm not critiquing your system, which I haven't looked at in any detail. Just a general philosophical statement. If you want your HF looked at, I'm available for consultancy work and my fee is...;)

Scott Voigt

30th Jun 2005, 15:22

New Model;

FAST basicly isn't being used in the US. We looked at it a while back and did a lot trials with it. We decided that it wasn't doing any better than the controller, and for it to work all the time and do it really well was going to cost a LOT of money for a pay back of only one or two aircraft an hour at best. It was dropped so that money could be better spent elsewhere. These days there isn't even money around for the GOOD and NEEDED programs <sigh>. It is looking rather grim here aviation wise. I keep hoping that things will turn the corner, but between chapter 11 companies keeping prices artificially low, not enough new runways, soaring fuel prices and our problem with our govt. spending more than we have and sending a LOT of it overseas, we aren't going to see any help in the next few years I am afraid.

regards

Scott

NewModelATC

1st Jul 2005, 08:17

vector4fun,

My apologies for making such a poor job of explaining the New Model’s approach to VFR flights and my thanks to you for clarifying some details of US practice. Even in the UK the use of controlled airspace does not require a flightplan. I had in my own mind the flight data record or system flight plan in the computer which is often created initially from the filed flightplan. But, even without a filed plan, we can say we know something about each track even if it is only its last position report. In the New Model Concept it is RESOURCES that matter so that every known flight is given airspace and time according to its needs and capabilities.

In calculating trajectories the New Model effectively calculates the PROBABILITY that separation will be lost and then allocates sufficient resource for that figure to be acceptably low. A prototype algorithm exists even in the demonstrator to do this. Therefore, the New Model Concept takes every known factor into account and can allow for things like navigation performance, wake turbulence in the air or the possibility of level busts, engine failure and cabin depressurisation.

That probably sound a bit complicated but what it means for VFR flights is that the less the system knows about them the more airspace resource they are likely to be allocated. I believe the New Model to be unique in proposing this approach for use in Air Traffic Control Centres. CFMU already does it in Europe for slot allocation.

I have also argued that airspace should be freely available if there is no competition for it. Why define fixed airspaces that are empty during some periods? I was very pleased to see that Brazil has allowed non-RVSM aircraft to use its RVSM airspace during the night. See Flight International 22 February 2005. My own vision is for this idea to be extended to all types of airspace and even ultimately for most boundaries to be removed.

Strangely, most of this is exactly how the human controller already works!

P.S. Scott, Can you give us an update on CTAS?

atcea.com

9th Jul 2005, 20:49

OK, supposing we look at the two elements of ATC discussed here seperatly: seperation and traffic managment.

How about using technology in the aircraft to guarantee seperation (at least to the degree that humans now do so) with some sort of next generation TCAS. This airborn seperation software is backed up by a ground-based, automated seperation service, much like that proposed by NewModel. Then, we needen't be too alarmed if an airborne system or two is on the fritz...the ground-based system will back it up. Likewise, if the ground based system is out, the airborne one is still keeping 'em apart.

Next, develop the ability to select optimum routes provided by an automated collaberation between advanced FMS equipment in the aircraft and advanced URET automation on the ground. The plane picks its own optimum route, taking into account all factors including weather, economics and time to destination, then "runs it by" the URET. If not approved by URET due to whatever reason - traffic, airport congestion at eta, whatever - the plane's equipment looks for the next best route, and so on and so on.

If either airborne or ground-based equipment fails, be it route selection or seperation, the system is not that adversly affected.

How's that sound ?

:D

Scott Voigt

10th Jul 2005, 05:01

ATCEA;

If you are going to base your separation on the URET conflict probe, you are going to scare a LOT of people...

regards

Scott

BDiONU

10th Jul 2005, 13:11

What you suggest sounds very much (if not identical) to the Free Flight trials I had some involvement in (as a Controller Guinea Pig) at the ATC research centre in Amsterdam. This was being conducted on behalf of NASA about 8 years ago.
They actually had a model of Eurocontrol airspace with about 300 aircraft flying through it all separated by a TCAS type device and all on their own navigation. Looked great, although I wondered what would happen if the TCAS on 1 aircraft failed? ;-)

Last I heard the US were going to trial it in Alaskan & Hawain airspace but there were problems. Not least over funding of the kit required in all the aircraft!

BD

NewModelATC

4th Nov 2005, 14:21

My thanks to everyone who has posted to this thread. Readers may be interested to know that I was invited to present my paper “A New Model for Automation in Air Traffic Control” at the ATCA Conference in Texas this week. The paper is now available on my website. I had many comments in support of the approach from USAF and RAF personnel as well as from operational FAA controllers.

The conference plenary sessions were full of references to NGATS (Next Generation Air Transportation System), NEO (Network Enabled Operations) and SESAME (Single European Sky ATM Master-Plan for Europe). Unfortunately, none of these programmes are starting out with a clear Concept of Operations. They all intend to define what they have to do during the first phase.

The conference (significantly in my view) did not talk about the controller’s role in any future system, about emissions and global warming or about how developing areas outside the USA and Europe would be able to afford the massive costs. Even in the Europe and the USA there are significant difficulties in funding ATM development and operation.

I submit again that (even with the need to address important issues such as human factors) the New Model is the only fully consistent Concept of Operations for the ATM system of the future with a place for the controller. I commend it again to those of you who are controllers as it was designed after speaking with many of you in the UK and Europe. Whatever reservations you may have I think it offers the best future for all of us.

Minesapint

4th Nov 2005, 16:57

Hi Scott, a couple of questions. Are the stripless systems still fed by NAS and how much was the increase in traffic experienced in the two years prior to the Atlanta Olympics? This infor would be really useful.

Thanks...

apache43

5th Nov 2005, 04:01

I am Canadian and my employer Nav Canada has apparently sold one of our systems to NATS. It's called EXCDS(Extended Computer Display System) and replaces strips. Anyone know if it's operational yet over there? We've had it in towers for close to a decade now and are control centres for something a bit less than that amount of time.

Gonzo

7th Nov 2005, 20:23

Apache43,

It's operational at Gatwick and Stansted.

Supposedly it will be operational at Heathrow in November 2006.

Luton are also slated to receive it.

NewModelATC

10th Jul 2006, 14:38

There was quite a lot of interest in this when I first posted. Since then I've presented a paper at the ATCA Conference in Texas and recieved many messages of support from active controllers. I have also been asked to post information on any future events. So, next week, the New Model will be on public display at the FARNBOROUGH INTERNATIONAL AIRSHOW 2006. Hall 2 Stand C32. The concept has attracted media interest and should feature in FLIGHT DAILY NEWS on the first day. There's a lot on the ATC agenda at the moment: CO2 emmisions, UAVs, ULJs, A380 wake turbulence and NATS for sale as well as the traditional safety and capacity. The New Model provides a robust answer in all of these topic areas. If you're reading this and will be at Farnborough then come and see the demonstrator in action. Do mention PPRuNe. I won't ask for your username. In fact, I'll give one FREE entrance ticket to a currently qualified and active controller chosen at random from those who send me a CONSTRUCTIVE comment by email (address on the website) or PM in the next few days. Hope to meet some of you there!

Gonzo

10th Jul 2006, 15:08

Can I ask what the 'answer' your system provides to the topic area of 'NATS for sale'?

NewModelATC

19th Oct 2006, 10:59

Gonzo and others that may be interested,
My proposal is that the New Model is a unique and complete solution to the introduction of automation in ATC. There is overwhelming evidence that it will work as advertised and 76 out of 78 visitors to my stand at Farnborough were on the positive side of neutral. Two actual TC controllers were even complimentary. A 777 fleet captain who started with sceptical comments stayed for 40 minutes and went away wishing that the system was already in service. At Farnborough the NM featured in FLIGHT DAILY NEWS and since July there have been two letters from me in FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL and a short piece in AEROSPACE INTERNATIONAL (an RAeS publication). Notwithstanding these results I respect anybody’s right to simply dislike the approach.
However, if the idea does work then what is NATS worth if it owns and can develop the technology? Developing systems doesn’t mean they have to be used in the UK. There are some very large markets out there. On the other hand, what is NATS worth if another ANSP realises the potential and exploits the already considerable information in the public domain?
I presume many people are familiar with Rolls Royce’s rejection of the Jet Engine and the subsequent donation of the technology to the USA for a nominal sum? Frank Whittle said that one of his major regrets was that the jet engine did not play a greater part in the winning of WWII. I don’t make any personal claims to brilliance; I’ve just put together a few ideas and requests that real controllers gave to me. Hence my feeling that readers of this site should be interested.
One of my own aims is to have some influence on emissions by air traffic. This week’s FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL has an article on the role of ATM in reducing contrail pollution. The New Model does work (whereas Free Flight was always incomplete and could not work without other tools). I'm hoping that I won't be shot as the messenger.

Gonzo

19th Oct 2006, 13:27

I visited your stand at EGLF, but you yourself were speaking with another visitor. A lady took my brother (works Clacton sector at LACC) and I through the system and the demo that was running. Now I'm no area controller, but her level of knowledge of en-route ATC was, to my mind, not very high. I didn't come away from the stand with any of my concerns allayed.

NewModelATC

19th Oct 2006, 15:01

Gonzo,
I'm truly disappointed that we didn't get to talk. I went all the way to Texas last year and didn't get to speak to the great Scott Voigt. Which day did you come to Farnborough? Was the lady old or young? Some of my helpers were on the stand because of their knowledge of IT systems. None of them would have claimed any ATC knowledge and none of them has worked on the New Model. I simply couldn't man a stand for a week by myself. I understand you will have concerns. From my side I know that the New Model does work and that its virtues make it a very valuable concept. It is still unique. You may see automation as a threat to your job but I would see it as an opportunity for very experienced controllers to capitalise on their experience by becoming consultants or mentors. All of the controllers I spoke to at CFMU said they enjoyed their job more there and felt as if they were productive than they had been on the ops room floor. The cracks are beginning to show again in projects such as SESAR and NGATS; just look at the potential market for the UK if we could develop a system. I would still be very pleased to go through the NM with you and address your points. You don’t have to reveal who you are. And if I found out it would be immensely stupid of me to reveal your identity. I won’t try to make an enthusiast out of you. That would be arrogant. I’d just like as many people as possible to understand the complete concept. Many of the controllers I spoke to at LATCC said I was unusual in actively consulting them and really trying to listen. I hope I may have the chance to prove to you that I am listening and that I am on your side. PM?

Gonzo

19th Oct 2006, 15:19

I don't have time for a lengthy reply right now. I certainly don't see automation as a threat to my job, as it's technically impossible right now. :)

As I said, I'm not an area ATCO; most of my concerns relate to skill atrophy and training.

I was there on one of the public days, I can't remember which!

Jerricho

19th Oct 2006, 16:29

You may see automation as a threat to your job

Just to echo my old friend Gonzo, at this point in time "automation" and terminal environment are very much mutually exclusive concepts.

anotherthing

19th Oct 2006, 16:43

NMA

I have no knowledge of your system, but ask one simple question..... have you been to West Drayton in the recent past?

I honestly do not see how automation can work in the London TMA; I cannot speak for other areas as I do not work in other areas.

It is a genuine question, not a snipe.... I cannot believe a computer could get anywhere near what a human achieves in TC. That is before we even begin to talk about emergencies and weather etc etc.

Good luck, because anything that assists me in my job would be a Godsend.

BlueSkye

19th Oct 2006, 21:12

I see this thread started over a year ago and was revived recently. I trained on a non-automated system(Thompson-CSF) and then moved to an automated system(Thales' EuroCat X). At first the skepticism was rife amongst everybody with exactly the same questions. Have you worked in XXXX? Our airspace is unique. What about weather? These questions were plentiful and when the day came to move away from paper strips and onto electronic, I thought of resigning. I mean, how will I handle a mouse if I am so in love with my trackerball? How will I spot conflicts without strips? What about those pesky litlle 100NM linesquals that cover ALL the feeder fixes? How on earth can anybody trust Maestro(the sequencing tool)?

Well, lo and behold. Within two months I wondered how we ever managed without it. Use flightstrips now to write down telephone numbers. As for the trackerball, comes in handy during Obud. One guy installed one in his bar at home. As for Maestro, it gets switched off during heavy WX. So NMATC, I have not had the oppurtunity to experiment with your project, but what I can see from your screenshots is that at first it looks really confusing because you are not used to it. But stare at the screen for a couple of minutes and it all starts to make sense. To all the non-believers I'll say this, automation is the way forward for ALL sectors. ACC, App, Twr, GMC the lot. I don't know if your system is similiar to EuroCat, but if it is then it is a Godsend. "Walk towards the light all yee non-believers.":)

NewModelATC

20th Oct 2006, 14:42

Thank you BlueSkye for posting your experience. I worked many years ago on software for the printing industry. The printers said that nothing could replace hot metal and then along came Rupert Murdoch and Fortress Wapping. Now any youngster with Adobe can produce a document in minutes to knock anything the old compositors could do into a cocked hat. The railway signalmen (who did a job very similar to the modern controller’s job) said software could never replace them. Now most of the UK is fully automatically signalled. Even the pilots are disconnected from the control surfaces by fly-by-wire software. The space shuttle has a fully automatic landing capability and Harriers can now be recovered aboard ships by computer. ATC automation by comparison is relatively simple and the New Model asserts that no new discovery or development is required. It can be done now, fully involving the controller and with all the safety and redundancy margins that the modern world requires.
Anotherthing, I was last inside West Drayton about five years ago but I have associations going back to 1944 and I remember Linesman-Mediator. I’m sure you’ll say things have moved on since 2002 but I doubt if anything fundamental has changed. One of the New Model’s unique features is that it keeps up with events even if the controller is operating without reference to the advisories. NM is therefore there to help you and not to overload you when you are busy. PM me and I’d be happy to arrange a demonstration. NM meets ALL of NATS requirements for an FDP system and then offers an evolutionary path to almost any functionality that one might want in the future. An NM speciality is support for incidents and emergencies. No other tool addresses exceptions so positively. Variable spacing for wake vortex? Variable routes for reduced contrails? Fully variable separations according to navigation capability? VLJs with PPL/IRs on board? UAVs in controlled airspace? GCA calculation for the Kegworth accident or the Virgin flight that lost all of its cockpit displays? These are things the airspace users want now and they all become simple in the NM concept.
Automation with the controller in the loop is now possible. The capability to use that automation to improve trajectories (pilots at Farnborough in July told me that they were still not getting long distance direct routes) and reduce emissions means that this is something in which EVERYONE now has a personal interest. Anyone at all there to support BlueSkye?

Point Seven

21st Oct 2006, 12:38

most of my concerns relate to skill atrophy

That much is true for all of us who work with you:p

P7

Gonzo

21st Oct 2006, 15:33

I hope you learnt a lot from Friday. :p
Here's a tip, try N1.

Jerricho

21st Oct 2006, 15:38

Don't worry Gonze, there are some skills that people like P7 have that you just can't teach........like being an asshole :E

(Hey P7, PM me your email address)

Point Seven

21st Oct 2006, 16:38

I hope you learnt a lot from Friday. :p
Here's a tip, try N1.

As I pointed out to you at the time, due to the WIP on the airfield, I use it when the situation dictates. Which it didn't.

P7

Lon More

21st Oct 2006, 20:40

Some of my helpers were on the stand because of their knowledge of IT systems. None of them would have claimed any ATC knowledge and none of them has worked on the New Model.
What sort of people did you expect to visit your stand? Some of the most knowledgeable people in aviation visit Farnborough and expect to meet similarly qualified reps. Would you buy a new car from a salesman totally unfamiliar with the product? I'm afraid that such an amateurish aproach will not further your cause.
The comparisons you make are apples and oranges. There is no similarity between fly by wire and autoland systems and ATC automation. And I can remember back to when it was tried to equate Controllers and Railway Signalmen salaries as certain politicians believed the tasks to be identical. This was dumped when the difficulty of stopping an aircraft in flight after a controller's mistake was pointed out.
I spent a couple of years working on the New ODS at Maastricht UAC. The task proved so difficult for many of the big names (Plessey, Siemens, Thomson, Thalys) that it went several years and many euros over budget. in fact a number of features have still not been implemented as there is still not the required computer capacity or processing speed available.
Despite my -ve remarks above, and even though i am now retired, I would like to see this in action. Are you planning to demonstrate your ideas at the ATC show in Maastricht next time round?

BTW for some other posters. Haven't you got a private NATS forum to wash your dirty laundry in?:ugh:

NewModelATC

22nd Oct 2006, 09:15

Lon More,

Because the New Model is a new idea with no funding there are inevitably very few people with a full understanding of its structure and potential. I was on the Farnborough stand the whole time (other than for essential breaks) but I could only talk to one group of people at a time. Laugh out loud if you like but I AM one of the most knowledgeable people in FDP systems. How was it that nobody else on the eFDP project had ever worked on an FDP implementation? And radar systems? I was the technical integrator for Signaal’s Rotterdam Harbour system which (when I joined the project) was so late that questions were being asked in the Dutch Parliament. I was personally tasked with getting it into service and my first delivery was on time six months later. I’ve worked for the big names and there are very good (but not excusable or justifiable) reasons why so many projects are late.

My comparisons are meant to illustrate different points. It is easy to suggest that something can’t be done but Clarke’s First Law states:

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible he is very probably wrong.”

Some of my examples show how true this is. Frank Whittle had to suffer people telling him the jet engine would never work even after the E28/39 had flown for the first time! Regarding the railways (which I use as an extended example on my website) I have actually taken a group of signalmen around LATCC and visited them at Slough Signal Box. Of course aircraft can’t stop in mid-air but if the path allocation and signalling are correct then trains don’t stop either. If they do then that is exactly analogous to aircraft holding. If you draw further parallels between CFMU and pathing, sectors and block sections, co-ordination and telegraph bell codes, separation standards and clearing distances then the operational problems of the two domains are identical.

The area I try to keep as far away from as possible is politics. Salaries, terms and conditions are not for me to comment on. However, as I have written before, those who understand the New Model will be able to control their destiny. If someone else gets there first then the future may be out of your hands. Denial is not the best strategy.

Thank you for your post. I am grateful to all who take the time and trouble to read or comment. I am still talking to my bank manager about Maastricht.

“Nothing was ever created by two men. There are no good collaborations whether in music, in art, in poetry, in mathematics, in philosophy. Once the miracle of creation has taken place, the group can build and extend it, but the group never invents anything. The preciousness lies in the lonely mind of a man.”

John Steinbeck, East of Eden

missy

22nd Oct 2006, 13:42

If you want to talk to managers and engineers try Maastricht 2007. If you want to controllers try IFATCA Annual Conference (2007 in Istanbul).

songbird29

24th Oct 2006, 14:25

NewModel's statement The railway signalmen (who did a job very similar to the modern controller’s job) brings back old memories. All through my career I have heard this comparison. As Lon More has said already, mostly to keep the salaries down. However, for the salaries the comparison didn't work. Salaries in the US and Europe are higher than ever dreamt of by PATCO in the eighties. I'm not speaking for extreme greediness of course and also not for countries like India or Brazil where there is room, or rather urge, for improvement to say it mildly.

NewModel uses the railway comparison again to argue that ATC can be automated. Does his argument hold water? Or, more generally, should ATC be automated? In fact, the answer is simple: if automation brings advances in safety, capacity, economy and environmental exhausts - yes, it will happen.

NewModel brings a demonstration model where everything fits. However, a demonstration model demonstrates potential but does not prove any advance in safety, capacity or economy. Also the NewModel is far from unique, as claimed by New Model. PPrune moderator has already made the correct reference:I am sure I saw such a system at Bretigny Sur Orge in the mid 1990s.
Valuable concept development since the mid nineties has been abundant. In the US we have witnessed the rise and fall of the 5 billion $ NAS modernisation project of the nineties, a managers and engineers dream intended to replace ATCO's in the wake of the PATCO sackings (this was before the UAL pilot ignited the Free Flight discussion, which also took millions of $). European R&D culminated in the common PHARE project, demonstrating the potential of automated arrival management and conflict detection/resolution.

Since PHARE, specifications for Basic and Advanced ATC Functions (of the type that one can see demonstrated in the NewModel), including all important HMI, have continuously been upgraded in international forums and demonstrated in various models, at Eurocontrol's Bretigny, CENA in France, NATS and Qinetiq research in UK, DLR in Germany, NLR in the Netherlands, NASA and MITRE in the US. I will not go into the detail of all the resulting demo products. Many contributions to this thread mention them and they can be seen at aviation exhibitions and on websites.

The pan-European Flight Data Processing project where NewModel got involved in was the eFDP. Now he claims Laugh out loud if you like but I AM one of the most knowledgeable people in FDP systems. How was it that nobody else on the eFDP project had ever worked on an FDP implementation?
A lot can be said of eFDP and its political fate and breakdown into three national or regional projects (VAFORIT in Germany, SACTA in Spain and UK, and the French/Italian project, with Eurocontrol's Maastricht and East European CEATS staying on the fence), but it is blatantly untrue for anyone to claim that nobody in eFDP ever worked on an FDP implementation. Scandalously untrue even. I will not publish the names and coordinates in a forum like this but I have them available.

One might say that those with real FDP implementation experience were on the conservative side and were not ready to include the advanced functions which are now in the NewModel, but that is something else. There was also political clout because contributing National Administrations preferred to develop their own systems, which also seems to be NewModel's line of thinking where he sayswhat is NATS worth if another ANSP realises the potential
Surely, NewModel has demonstrated the usefulness of automated advanced functions. But his dream of getting included in John Steinbeck's hall of fame of inventors should be challenged and is in fact counterproductive. NewModel is just one of those, an engineer building on the common experience of many, many others. He would do better to keep acknowledging this, as he still used to do two years ago in previous posts The New Model draws on the conclusions of projects such as ERATO and CORA
ATC automation is a continuous process where we are all cogs in a wheel which is put in motion by the need to improve safety, to gain capacity, economical benefits and the necessary contribution to diminish the ever more threatening exhausts in our atmosphere. The NewModel is a good contribution to show the way ahead and I hope its demonstrations will contribute to convincing managers, engineers and ATCO's that their systems should evolve in this direction.

Having said this, it seems necessary to add that, as long as there is no closed loop between FMS and FDPS, automation in ATC will not be able to go any further than automated assistance to ATCO's, who will continue to be the pivot of ATC. Only when FMS and FDPS exchange data and intent, the role of the ATCO can evolve further.

Quincy M.E.

25th Oct 2006, 07:56

The railway signalmen (who did a job very similar to the modern controller’s job) said software could never replace them. Now most of the UK is fully automatically signalled.

But software has not replaced them and the last time I was at Swindon B signal box (which is IECC just like Slough new) they seemed to be pretty busy to me.

foghorn

25th Oct 2006, 10:25

But software has not replaced them and the last time I was at Swindon B signal box (which is IECC just like Slough new) they seemed to be pretty busy to me.

Indeed, in some circumstances the software has taken over a lot of the drudgery from the signalmen. But even in the most automated of signalboxes, the signalmen/women are still there in significant numbers, manually handling the many situations that the automatics don't handle well.

And of course only a small amount of the rail network runs on the latest automated systems simply because the money isn't there to install the new systems. Much of the network runs on non-computerised signalling systems that are at least 30 years old and often older. In the recent upgrade of the Manchester area they even left the ancient pull-lever signalboxes in place to save on money!

Sound familiar?

Quincy M.E.

25th Oct 2006, 11:44

Yep and the fact the the trains running on the network are carp along with train operating companies' incompetance means that there are a significant number of services that fall out of their 'slot' in the automatic route setting software meaning more work for the siggy.

Jerricho

25th Oct 2006, 15:30

I'm sure many of the dinosaurs round here ( ;) respect ;) ) and even some of us greener types have seen automation make our lives easier in the day to day running of a sector. But who else can also cite instances where an all singing, all dancing automated system has increased workload (NATS FAST trial at TC anyone? ) There is no denying that familiarisation with a system allows for more efficient use by the controller, but how many systems now require the controller to "feed the machine", requiring more heads down time........ not providing the primary job of watching the damn radar (full time attentive flight monitoring as a certain ANS provider calls it)

AND what happens when it fails? YWG Terminal uses EXCDS/EFPS and it's quite a good system..........right up to the point where it fails in the middle of a busy arrival/departure sequence.

zzjayca

26th Oct 2006, 14:23

No way Jerricho! EXCEDS, IIDS, CVIDS, VSCS, and even the all singing all dancing CAATS will never fail. Management told me so!;)

Jerricho

26th Oct 2006, 16:32

..........oh that's great.

I've got a binder sitting next to me here that doesn't quite adhere to your statement ;)

Scott Voigt

28th Oct 2006, 22:04

Songbird'

Just one note to you... US ATCO pay bands have been slashed in the last couple of months. They are NO WHERE near what they once were. THe new kids coming in are going to make far less and the folks who are in training, now will never see what they were promised.

We are seeing many of the college trained folks turning down employment requests by the FAA, as we are people who were coming from the military side now turning down employment...

Oh and as to new and wonderful stuff coming down the line, take a look at the ERAM stuff that the FAA is working on to replace the old 9020 software from the early 70's.

regards

Scott

songbird29

29th Oct 2006, 14:26

Yes SV, I am aware of what is going on between NATCA and the FAA. I should have added something like "until the setback last summer". Curious to learn whether or rather how long the FAA's policies to ignore ATCO's input will persist. In a way it is a repetition of a traditional FAA HQ attitude isn't it.

I am knowledgable with ERAM. While being in touch, is there still or again anything moving on passive CTAS down there at Dallas. What I remember is that the automatic sequencing advice worked promisingly under stable runway conditions, but was messy for about twenty minutes when there was a change in north-south runway orientation.

When I visited Dallas last, would you believe 10th September 2001, I was also told or given to understand that CTAS was halted by NATCA to counteract FAA's policies at the time, probably a previous round of salary negotiations.

Scott Voigt

30th Oct 2006, 04:53

Hi Songbird;

Actually it was PFAST part of CTAS that was stopped. The reason for it was that it was found that it was lacking and to get it to the level of what controllers did it would cost a pretty sum of money. NATCA convinced the FAA that it would be more prudent to spend that money on other projects such as ASDE-X and other things then to spend millions on a system to get it just as good as controllers. Of course the NASA folks had other ideas <G>...

regards

Scott

Highspeed_approved

31st Oct 2006, 11:48

Interesting stuff for me here......
Without going into details I'm involved in doing specs for a planned AMAN system. Done lots off studies on available material, primarilly eurocontrol stuff....EATCHIP docs, feasability studies etc. One off the things we are pondering about is advanced advisories for optimization off final spacing, and I've read all I've come over about pFast in the US, and also FAST(NATS). Reading the comments from Scott Voigt and others (in particular Gonzos in this (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=157238&highlight=aman)thread) gives me a clear understanding these systems didn't deliver as expected. Being an approach controller myself I'm also very sceptical to implement too many "bells and whistles" into our system, especially considering the place I'm at has veery adverse and changing wx/wind conditions and other variables.....
In short I think our focus will be kept on optimizing the inbound streams in a way that doesn't conflict with our "handywork" :ok:

NewModelATC

6th Nov 2006, 09:00

Good to see you onboard with the discussion Highspeed. Although there are some points I ought to address from earlier posts I’ll just offer some thoughts on your area as my own experience in approach sequencing goes back about 15 years. The trail is littered with failures because some fundamental truths have not been recognised.
In the USA there was a proposal to eliminate holding stacks until some people pointed out that the problem is not deterministic but rather, that probability and queuing theory govern the results. Anyone still working on 4-D control?
NATS toyed with approach sequencing for CCF Stage 5 ‘Tunnels in the Sky’ until it became clear that the whole idea couldn’t work. The traditional rule ‘First Come First Served’ has no meaning if you extend your view outside a single sector or move away from the controller as the decision maker and final arbiter.
EATCHIP and eFDP missed much of the value they could have added by sprinkling the word ‘optimise’ everywhere in the requirements without saying what had to be optimised. Fuel? Time? Aircraft Aggregate Time? Aircraft Aggregate Fuel Burn? Passenger Hours? Landing Rate? Over what period?
You can only optimise against a SINGLE variable. If you want to optimise against more than one parameter then you have to relate them mathematically. As a minimum you will end up with partial differential equations. As a simple example, most aircraft use a cost index to optimise flight time and fuel burn. Time and fuel have to be given monetary values that can be traded off. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
Many years ago the London Ambulance Service tried to ‘optimise’ response times by sending the closest ambulance to an incident. Anyone who had encountered a Monte Carlo (Random Walk) Simulation would have known that this algorithm simply causes the ambulances to wander all over London and get lost. Some people believe that lives were lost when this happened in the real world.
So, please, if you want to optimise anything, write down exactly what it is and make sure you include ALL the dependent variables. And be aware that if you put this into a machine algorithm to influence the real world of ATC then I predict that the airlines will soon want to know exactly how it affects them.
Let’s suppose (for environmental reasons) that we have to minimise aggregate fuel burn. A simple algorithm would grade aircraft according to rates of fuel consumption and land the heaviest consumers as quickly as possible. So 747s would get close to straight in approaches while small business jets might have to hold until the tanks were nearly dry.
Having said all of that, the control of intermediate and final approaches by radar vectoring is one of the triumphs of the human mind. I agree that it may be almost impossible to design a machine to do as well by doing it the same way. What seems to be missing is the recognition that the airlines don’t want to do it this way. MLS is available and installed. The USA and many other countries are pushing towards GPS. I have read that EVERY new Boeing and Airbus aircraft has Multi-Mode Receiver (GPS/ILS/MLS) capability.
Airlines want curved approaches and continuous descents from cruising levels but these cannot be achieved using human beings, radar and VHF voice communications. The most impressive continuous descent approaches in the world are executed by the Space Shuttle. The night landing at Edwards AFB by Eileen Collins in Discovery was superb. I put it to you that the case for automation is proven (yes, proven) on all counts and that political factors are now the only reason for persisting with our current methods.