free flight
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks again for the input. There are some really good items mentioned, and it is good to read that the experiments are moving ahead. As far as the US already having free flight, that is getting ahead of ourselves. That is not my experience. LAX and SFO are for us exceptions because of the northerly routings, Houston, Chicago, Detroit, etc, show a wide variance in direct routings. It does occur on a regular basis that the direct routing that is kindly offered is not a fuel saving but at best breaks even because of the wind pattern. And true free flight would make cost savings not only in the actual flying phase, but a lot of the savings would actually come during planning. Now we can't anticipate on the direct routings, we carry the fuel for the airways. Mr. Voigt, in your post you talk a lot about delays, I understand this, because that is what you get hassled about by the airlines, but cutting down on delays is an outcome not a reason for free flight in my opinion. In Europe most of our delays are not because of weather, but because of airspace capacity (never had a slot-time in the US or Canada). The driver behind free flight (again my opinion) is airspace capacity and operating savings. Fuel constitutes the largest expense after wages (this is the case for my and most airlines), and its fluctuations often mean the difference between loss and profit. On my aircraft I would foresee savings adding up very quickly. With our average fuel costs a savings of 5% would yield around $50 mil. saving on an annual basis (company wide based on a three year trendline of fuel costs). In my estimation this would be a very conservative number. For example tonight as I fly back from Delhi the routing we are forced to take is over ninety minutes longer then optimum, the altitudes will be aweful, usually starting out around FL. 260 and it won't get much better until we are over Turkey (more then three hours later), total flight time around 8.45 hours. True free flight would give you the most optimum fuel routing (company term) right of the bat. I understand your tendency to relate the savings to the US scenerio. But that is not the limit of free flight. The savings in the US are maybe in the single digit %, but for the global picture the %'s are much, much bigger. The savings don't only extend to fuel, but because of the shorter flying times, crew and aircraft rotations come into play, maintenance intervals change, all "small" things that add up, very quickly. Now spread that over the world's airlines not just my small part and I can see some serious money numbers coming up. You are absolutely right when you come up with the argument about ground infrastructure. The problems will shift. But that is something that the politicians will have to fight over, at least it ups the pressure, and that seems to be the driver on these kind of issues (terminal 5 at EGLL but to name something). As for weather. it was part of the experiments I flew. The display is integrated with the weather radar, enroute it won't pose a huge problem, and terminal free flight is so far off that I don't think we have to find solutions for that question, yet. Lastly, there are some really good places in the worldwide system, where free flight could be tested. The NA is one, the Pacific is another, the Med. is on a small scale interesting, but free flight as I got to see it is different from what ORAC has mentioned. I hope we will see this move forward. I am shamed at the length of my reply once again, I will try to keep it down, if I post again, Kind regards, Otterman.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: I sell sea shells by the sea shore
Posts: 856
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otterman et al...
Scott has made a very valid point. Another part of the equation is the number of Runways available at your chosen destination. Indeed the limiting factor in the LTMA is the amount of concrete for aircraft to make appproaches to. This leads to airborne delays (holding) and effectively constrains the capacity of teh surrounding airspace.
There isn't much point saving all that fuel on a point to point route only to waste it all holding for an approach slot at your destination.
This is one reason why I think Free Flight will probably be of more benefit over the Oceans.
Lets keep the pot boiling though. Any more ideas?
rgds BEX
Scott has made a very valid point. Another part of the equation is the number of Runways available at your chosen destination. Indeed the limiting factor in the LTMA is the amount of concrete for aircraft to make appproaches to. This leads to airborne delays (holding) and effectively constrains the capacity of teh surrounding airspace.
There isn't much point saving all that fuel on a point to point route only to waste it all holding for an approach slot at your destination.
This is one reason why I think Free Flight will probably be of more benefit over the Oceans.
Lets keep the pot boiling though. Any more ideas?
rgds BEX
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Fort Worth ARTCC ZFW
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Otterman;
I completely understand your thoughts about the international scene. That is why I was talking about the cost benefit for the US. As to the directs and such here. The airlines are able to take advantage of more direct or wind and weather routes and do it many times each day. They are called NRP (National Route Program) routes. The only time that they are overridden are when National Traffic Managment incentives are in place due to weather and other such problems. The other time is when the Capt. decides that he wants to go direct and not what the company filed <EG>... So in the US you can plan for these routes, and you can also plan for the routes that aren't going to be available since we have telcons every two hours where all the users can listen in and know what is happening in the system and know what the plans are for traffic...
regards
I completely understand your thoughts about the international scene. That is why I was talking about the cost benefit for the US. As to the directs and such here. The airlines are able to take advantage of more direct or wind and weather routes and do it many times each day. They are called NRP (National Route Program) routes. The only time that they are overridden are when National Traffic Managment incentives are in place due to weather and other such problems. The other time is when the Capt. decides that he wants to go direct and not what the company filed <EG>... So in the US you can plan for these routes, and you can also plan for the routes that aren't going to be available since we have telcons every two hours where all the users can listen in and know what is happening in the system and know what the plans are for traffic...
regards
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The runway issue is, and will remain a problem in the future. So free flight won't solve that one. These airports own constraints will continue with their slot policies. But free flight has a good change of relieving airspace capacity. But that is only part of what free flight means to me. It means optimum altitudes and routings. But free flight doesn't mean that everyone all of a sudden gets to do what they want, you still will need the slot at either end. Airport slots will in the future (maybe it is already here), become the most valuable commodity in the airline business (sorry my opinion again). So things within the LTMA won't change much in the foreseeable future. In Europe I am pretty pessimistic about the extra concrete that will get pored for the aviation industry, signals from the States aren't much better. It certainly won't keep up with demand. But that in no way negates the savings that free flight constitutes. BEXIL, and Mr. Voigt thanks again for your perspective. The NRP is something that I am not familiar with. This probably has to do with the way I get to use the US system. I am either on my way to a US airport from Amsterdam, or I am heading back there. So I don't fly any domestic sectors, and it sounds like NRP is used for domestic traffic. My view of the whole free flight encompasses a very broad view, and sectors of a few hours are not where free flight comes into its own. My flight from Delhi was worse then usual. First three hours at FL220 (the Boeing 747-300 likes it fuel down there), the next hour at FL240 then we were stuck at FL310 for the rest of the nine hour flight. Difference between great circle and ground distance flown was 880 nautical miles. Used an extra 5000 kilos of fuel for the flight compared to what was planned (because of the altitudes). Landed with nominal reserve. Plenty of room for improvement. Kind regards, Otterman.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I didn’t reply earlier to Vector_Pushtin. You are absolutely right that this should be tested on a very restricted and limited basis in airspace where it is manageable. Just as an interesting perspective. Free flight during cruise was tested in the sim. using European airspace, and up to densities of four times current peak usage. As I mentioned in my original post. Crews didn’t experience a huge increase in workload at that level. European airspace is a hodgepodge of efficiency ranging from best in class to the mentally challenged individual at the back of the room. So there is plenty of scope for improvement, but the issues on a national level are not very conducive to a solution. Maybe free flight can be a driver.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: EDUU
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let´s look at the nearer future in Europe: anybody heard of FRAP? (Free Route Airspace Project) Planned to be implemented as the next step towards free flight. It could work quite well for transiting traffic at higher levels.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't let this pass without comment Otterman. The topic of delays (usually blamed on ATC) has been done to death. The great circle is a myth unless it's over an ocean- you just cannot go where you want! Reference your Delhi flight; do you want to fly over Afghanistan, Iraq etc. at the moment? If some of the recalcitrant states put in RADAR, then you would be able to cruise at nearer an optimum level- right up to the point where you enter the holds at destination. A lot of the 'low-level' cruising comes about because of AIRLINE SCHEDULING, and free flight will not enable all the aircraft to cruise in the same bit of sky. It is a cliche- all the departures swarm out and are held down by the overflyers just coming over the top- because you all want to ARRIVE at the same time. You are all funnelling through the few available routes that aren't constrained by wars, paranoia etc, fly through PROCEDURAL AIRSPACE (this is 2001 for heaven's sake) and then wait your turn to land due to runway capacity. Exactly how does free flight help?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the list of entities involved in a Mediterainian free flight experiment looks like it could show how FF could be done over ocean. Is the Med a good microcosim to stand in for a bigger ocean? Gulf of Mexico (not even a full fledged ocean) is now controlled procedurally because of a lack of radar coverage etc like a real ocean.
Also looking at the list of people involved could there be a wee bit of marketing and pushing standards that are advantagous to only certain companies/countries at the expense of all others? Shocking that companies would try to do this.
Seem to recall a go at something like this by equiping long range 747s in the Pacific with GPS and data link and such and there was not sufficient benefit to pay the communications costs, let alone for the capital investment.
Also looking at the list of people involved could there be a wee bit of marketing and pushing standards that are advantagous to only certain companies/countries at the expense of all others? Shocking that companies would try to do this.
Seem to recall a go at something like this by equiping long range 747s in the Pacific with GPS and data link and such and there was not sufficient benefit to pay the communications costs, let alone for the capital investment.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Ottoman,
I have to take exception to you using your recent Delhi flight to score points with.
I can only echo Ferris's comments about scheduling and being surrounded by procedural control units.
Regardless of the situation in the EU, USA or any part of Oceanic airspace, you cannot compare your recent flight from Delhi with them, and use it to show the savings you could have made.
A couple of points.
1. For the first couple of hours after departing Delhi, you would have been held down at Fl220 due to the fact there is a war on. (unless you tracked well to the south of the normal route). You were not held down fro controller amusement. The US/Brit airforces own a huge slice of airspace over the Karachi and Afghan FIR's. The "blocked" airspace is from FL240 to FL330. Therefore if you are unable to reach FL350 (westbound) by entering the Karachi FIR, you stay down low. That's a fact of life. Free flight will have you up over Kandahar mixing it with all sorts of exotic grey aircraft, probably not what you or the pax would really want.
I imagine when you entered the FIR eastbound, you had the choice of FL230 or FL370...same reason, it's not something that makes our job any easier I can assure you.
Realistically you could not expect your planned level in amongst that lot, so to mention it twice to make a point is misleading.
It was by no means "normal" level assignment.
2. Most of the additional track miles that you had to fly on airways are for politacal reasons, not Air Traffic reasons. Again in the EU or US you don't have the problems that we have here in the ME. No one flies over Afghanistan or Iraq...you go around. Simple facts of life I'm afraid.
Yes, you guessed it more track miles than the great circle route.
As for when you entered the Muscat FIR and were climbed to whatever the level was, the problem was congestion due to the fact that EVERYBODY is in the same boat, ie flying around the warzone. Naturally with traffic levels that increased, the airspace gets crowded, and as Ferris said in his post, the northern neighbours don't have radar, so it's back to procedural control. We, those of us with radars, can give you just about anything you want, but the next guys will just take it away.
This problem will ease dramatically with the Tehran radar coming on line shortly.
however, I'd say the chances of free flight in this region in the forseeable future are fairly low.
So as Scott Voigt said, compare apples with apples (paraphrasing)
OK Rant over, interesting thread apart from the above,
Cheers
I have to take exception to you using your recent Delhi flight to score points with.
I can only echo Ferris's comments about scheduling and being surrounded by procedural control units.
Regardless of the situation in the EU, USA or any part of Oceanic airspace, you cannot compare your recent flight from Delhi with them, and use it to show the savings you could have made.
A couple of points.
1. For the first couple of hours after departing Delhi, you would have been held down at Fl220 due to the fact there is a war on. (unless you tracked well to the south of the normal route). You were not held down fro controller amusement. The US/Brit airforces own a huge slice of airspace over the Karachi and Afghan FIR's. The "blocked" airspace is from FL240 to FL330. Therefore if you are unable to reach FL350 (westbound) by entering the Karachi FIR, you stay down low. That's a fact of life. Free flight will have you up over Kandahar mixing it with all sorts of exotic grey aircraft, probably not what you or the pax would really want.
I imagine when you entered the FIR eastbound, you had the choice of FL230 or FL370...same reason, it's not something that makes our job any easier I can assure you.
Realistically you could not expect your planned level in amongst that lot, so to mention it twice to make a point is misleading.
It was by no means "normal" level assignment.
2. Most of the additional track miles that you had to fly on airways are for politacal reasons, not Air Traffic reasons. Again in the EU or US you don't have the problems that we have here in the ME. No one flies over Afghanistan or Iraq...you go around. Simple facts of life I'm afraid.
Yes, you guessed it more track miles than the great circle route.
As for when you entered the Muscat FIR and were climbed to whatever the level was, the problem was congestion due to the fact that EVERYBODY is in the same boat, ie flying around the warzone. Naturally with traffic levels that increased, the airspace gets crowded, and as Ferris said in his post, the northern neighbours don't have radar, so it's back to procedural control. We, those of us with radars, can give you just about anything you want, but the next guys will just take it away.
This problem will ease dramatically with the Tehran radar coming on line shortly.
however, I'd say the chances of free flight in this region in the forseeable future are fairly low.
So as Scott Voigt said, compare apples with apples (paraphrasing)
OK Rant over, interesting thread apart from the above,
Cheers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: EU
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Divingduck, of course I used my recent flight from Delhi to my effect. You are absolutely right when you mention the things that you do they are all true. And this certainly will be the last region in the world that would see any benefit from this research. Still in the best of times this route poses the same challenges. Flight times much longer then they need to be and altitudes far from optimum. As I mentioned in my previous posts the potential savings will vary from region to region. Aero political reasons are of course a huge driver in this area (where aren’t they). But the fact alone that it would increase capacity because we could do away with procedural separation is a huge gain. Let alone the fact that the optimum fuel track could be flown for long stretches. That is valid for the Atlantic Ocean as well, no need to fly tracks based on two city pairs, neither of which I am heading to. My apologies if you were offended by my use of this recent example, but to me it represents a valid point. The system is hopelessly behind (in that region, and reaching limits in others) and there is no relief in sight. Waiting for them to upgrade their equipment is at best a long-term proposition. I have not seen any improvement in the last decade. Free flight as I got to see it was self-contained. For the airlines it would be put up or shut up.
I am sure that the airline-scheduling story has been talked about numerous times on this and other forums. I am sure it has been mentioned that the business that we are involved in is rather silly when you talk about the economics. In order to even produce a modest rate of return the airlines have to do a number of things. Keeping the airplanes flying is one. Offering the passenger the connections that they will fly is another. And of course what the guy next to you is doing is also very important. This all combines in the show that we have today. It is reality and it will not change. Providing incentives, like reduced charges is only a marginal weapon at best, because of the integral nature of the hub and spoke system that the large majors operate. It is a non-starter to try and change that. Airlines provide the demand for the ATC system and the ATC system aims to provide for that demand. Basic economics (supply/demand). The cause and effect is that ATC (as we know it today) exists because of the Airlines, not the other way around (sounds arrogant it certainly isn't meant that way, it just seems self evident to me). The system is reaching its limits and it is up to both communities to look at the solutions. The Airlines pay the bills for the great service we usually get and the inefficiency that large chunks of the system generate, it is a monopoly, my side of the fence isn’t. When you overfly most of the poorer countries, between Europe and the Far East they only want your aircraft registration and aircraft type, in order to send the bill out as quickly as possible, improving service isn’t high on their agenda. Our objectives should be the same.
Finally to Ratboy, as far as the Pacific tests using data link that is a whole different thing. If I recall they still flew using the same system (ATC controlled), and reduced separation was one of the objective. Flying the most optimum fuel routes, and altitudes is a whole different ambition and the cost saving associated are on a totally different scale.
Just to be clear, I am a simple airplane driver no affiliation to any organization (except my airline, for which I am no more then one of their 2000 pilots), and the silliness I put down reflects only on myself. Certainly hoping that I didn’t cause offence (I have deep respect for the hard job you are all doing out there), kind regards Otterman.
I am sure that the airline-scheduling story has been talked about numerous times on this and other forums. I am sure it has been mentioned that the business that we are involved in is rather silly when you talk about the economics. In order to even produce a modest rate of return the airlines have to do a number of things. Keeping the airplanes flying is one. Offering the passenger the connections that they will fly is another. And of course what the guy next to you is doing is also very important. This all combines in the show that we have today. It is reality and it will not change. Providing incentives, like reduced charges is only a marginal weapon at best, because of the integral nature of the hub and spoke system that the large majors operate. It is a non-starter to try and change that. Airlines provide the demand for the ATC system and the ATC system aims to provide for that demand. Basic economics (supply/demand). The cause and effect is that ATC (as we know it today) exists because of the Airlines, not the other way around (sounds arrogant it certainly isn't meant that way, it just seems self evident to me). The system is reaching its limits and it is up to both communities to look at the solutions. The Airlines pay the bills for the great service we usually get and the inefficiency that large chunks of the system generate, it is a monopoly, my side of the fence isn’t. When you overfly most of the poorer countries, between Europe and the Far East they only want your aircraft registration and aircraft type, in order to send the bill out as quickly as possible, improving service isn’t high on their agenda. Our objectives should be the same.
Finally to Ratboy, as far as the Pacific tests using data link that is a whole different thing. If I recall they still flew using the same system (ATC controlled), and reduced separation was one of the objective. Flying the most optimum fuel routes, and altitudes is a whole different ambition and the cost saving associated are on a totally different scale.
Just to be clear, I am a simple airplane driver no affiliation to any organization (except my airline, for which I am no more then one of their 2000 pilots), and the silliness I put down reflects only on myself. Certainly hoping that I didn’t cause offence (I have deep respect for the hard job you are all doing out there), kind regards Otterman.
