ATC Issues A place where pilots may enter the 'lions den' that is Air Traffic Control in complete safety and find out the answers to all those obscure topics which you always wanted to know the answer to but were afraid to ask.

ATC History

Old 12th Apr 2009, 00:23
  #101 (permalink)  

More than just an ATCO
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 71
Posts: 1,768
have the MoD finally caught him?
.Might take a bit more than ModPlod to lock him away
Lon More is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2009, 08:13
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: By the big Teapot
Posts: 323
"is the Creeganator still around or have the MoD finally caught him?"
Retiring this year from MACC.

Last edited by Spiney Norman; 13th Apr 2009 at 08:38.
Spiney Norman is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2009, 14:24
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South East England
Posts: 305
HD........

The USAF KB-50Js going from Norfolk to Chatteroux (sp?) used to read-back "Brookmans Park, Kilburn, Epsom, DunsFORD". Never did understand why they often got it wrong.
Chartres by any chance?

N o t a
None of the above is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2009, 19:10
  #104 (permalink)  

More than just an ATCO
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 71
Posts: 1,768
Waddelie, Breecon, Saint Rumble was another USAF routing
Lon More is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2009, 19:24
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,276
None of the above... Try a Google search for: USAF Chatteroux.

Lon More.... Up north their choppers would route via Steelens (St Helens)!
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2009, 20:55
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: South East England
Posts: 305
None of the above... Try a Google search for: USAF Chatteroux.
I live and learn!

N o t a
None of the above is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2009, 21:06
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Asgard
Posts: 487
I used to enjoy giving the cousins routeings which included the reporting point DIKAS....for some reason they didn`t like reading it back the way I said it.
Loki is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2009, 21:58
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Farnham Surrey UK
Posts: 51
Anyone remember "One Hundred Echo", AKA "LOOE"...?
folkyphil is offline  
Old 13th Apr 2009, 22:21
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: North Wales
Posts: 321
It was Chateauroux, a long-forgotten USAF transport base in Central France, now a civil airport.
Atcham Tower is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2009, 16:27
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 78
Posts: 840
Heathrow Director, You seem to think I am joking or something. Nav Canada are intending to use ADS-B over the Hudson Bay area to give a 'radar like' service above FL290 - they have a good business case and are definitely going ahead. Similarly, Airservices Australia will be using it for the whole interior of Australia. UPS, the parcel operator, have equipped their B767 and B757 fleet and using it at Louisvilles and have proved that it works - they are reducing arrival fuel burn, noise and environmental emissions. The FAA are investing around $6.0m to equip some US Airlines aircraft so that they can conduct trials of suitable cockpit displays at Philadelphia. I could add many more examples but clearly you are sceptical! I think even the Laughing Policeman might like it one day.
Bergerie1 is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2009, 18:10
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,276
<<they have a good business case and are definitely going ahead. >>

A sentence which make a cold hand grip my heart!! What exactly is a "good business case" when air safety is concerned?

<<UPS, the parcel operator, have equipped their B767 and B757 fleet and using it at Louisvilles and have proved that it works - they are reducing arrival fuel burn, noise and environmental emissions. >>

OK... but how?? How can an ADS-B system reduce fuel burn, noise and environmental emissions? How could such a system produce similar results at a busy UK airport?

I am genuinely interested......
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2009, 18:56
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 5116N00044W
Age: 72
Posts: 179
What exactly is a "good business case"?
Sticking a few ADS-B receivers round the coast probably only costs a few hundred thousand dollars and gives controllers a reasonably reliable view of where aircraft are. (Almost certainly better than they would get if they were relying on reports from the pilots, who will, after all, be making these reports using the same navigation avionic equipment that is feeding the transponder.) Transmissions from aircraft above FL290 can be received over 180nm away.

In areas where there is limited or no radar cover, the controllers can therefore reduce the separation minima and may be able to give more aircraft more optimal routes hence reducing fuel burn etc. HD should stop thinking airways!

There is little direct benefit to airspace users in the UK where most of our airspace is covered by 3 or more conventional radars, except that ADS-B technology should be significantly cheaper than sticking huge chunks of metal on big electric motors up large concrete posts and requires a lot less maintenance (and, therefore, outage).
PeltonLevel is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2009, 19:21
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,276
Pelton Level. Your profile says you are/were an engineer. I was an air trafic controller. I guess that's why we have different perceptions of the system.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2009, 20:02
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,003
HD,
Dibnah, Stanier, Gresley and Brunel.
Now, they WERE engineers!
ZOOKER is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2009, 20:34
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: 5116N00044W
Age: 72
Posts: 179
HD - from an earlier post, you remember when domestic ATC was (at least partly) procedural. Are you saying that technology has offered no improvements from those days?

All I am saying is that ADS-B is better than nothing (and cheap enough to warrant installation in areas where no-one can justify - i.e. make a business case for, weighing the cost against the safety and capacity benefits - installing conventional radar).
PeltonLevel is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2009, 07:11
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,276
P-L.. OK. We must agree to differ, unless you can convince me of the integrity of ADS-B.

I spent my life using conventional radar and when I looked at an aeroplane on the radar I knew that it was very, very close to that position. In fact, so close that I was quite confident of the safety aspects when using 2.5nm radar separation. Any inaccuracies which did exist applied to all aircraft, not just to one.

My understanding of ADS-B is that the position of the aircraft as viewed on ground equipment depends on GNSS and the aircraft equipment, which must be correctly set up. At present, no doubt because the system is not mandatory in the UK, ADS-B transmissions may not be relied upon.

I can watch ADS-B transmissions on my PC and I have seen far too many inaccurate position reports, typically of 2-3 miles but sometimes as much as 5 miles.

The system may well be of great use over areas where there is no conventional radar cover but I need to be convinced of the advantages in replacing conventional ground-based radar with an ADS-B system for use in a busy ATC environment.

Please convince me that I am wrong....
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2009, 08:31
  #117 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 78
Posts: 840
There is no need to be so suspicious about a business case, so long as it also includes a sound safety case. It is essential to have both, the one to ensure a financial return and the other for all the obvious safety reasons you and I value. If ADS-B is to be used in the future, the first priority is to ensure that the accuracy, integrity, continuity, etc of the position information is all of the right quality. It isnít at the moment, and the ADS-B positions you have been looking at are from aircraft where the system has not yet been certificated. When it is, you will be able to rely upon it in exactly the same way you can rely on the Mode S altitude read-outs. There is a huge effort going on to get aircraft fitted and certificated. The Hudson Bay business case comes from the fact that, over Hudson Bay where the east/west traffic between N. America and Europe crosses the north/south traffic between America and the Far East, at the moment they can only use procedural control. ADS-B would allow reduced separations to be used without the expense of installing MSSRs in an arctic environment. Nearer home, the helicopter traffic over the N Sea requires better surveillance than exists at the moment. ADS-B and Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) could revolutionise this and offer much greater safety. Regarding UPS at Louisville, their aircraft are being fitted with ADS-B (In and Out) so that the pilots have a good reliable pictorial presentation of other traffic. (Pilots think that TCAS can do this but it is not accurate enough) ADS-B will be sufficiently accurate but only when properly certificated, which it is on the UPS aircraft. The benefits come from the controller being able to delegate time or distance intervals between suitable equipped aircraft to set up arrival streams. The pilots then maintain the required distance or time intervals which in turn allows them to do continuous descent approaches without reducing the arrival rate. It is early days, but just think of what ultimately could be done at European airports, and how much easier both the controllerís and the pilotís job could become - much better than the old tombone pattern with the pilots trying to second guess the controller and the controller wondering whether the pilots will do exactly as instructed, quickly and accurately. Go and look at the website I referred to in my earlier message.
Bergerie1 is online now  
Old 17th Apr 2009, 09:49
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 75
Posts: 8,276
<<When it is, you will be able to rely upon it in exactly the same way you can rely on the Mode S altitude read-outs.>>

But altitude read-out can only be used when properly verified by ATC. So what happens with ADS-B and how does ATC carry out verification of position?

I can, perhaps, see some benefit for the system in remote areas, but not in busy airspace. As for delegating the task of ATC to pilots, that is ridiculous! Pilots spend half their lives moaning about their workload so would they accept the aditional task of separating themselves from other traffic?

<<The pilots then maintain the required distance or time intervals which in turn allows them to do continuous descent approaches without reducing the arrival rate. It is early days, but just think of what ultimately could be done at European airports, and how much easier both the controllerís and the pilotís job could become - much better than the old trombone pattern with the pilots trying to second guess the controller and the controller wondering whether the pilots will do exactly as instructed, quickly and accurately. >>

With the greatest respect in the world, Bergerie1, I do not think you have much understanding of busy air traffic situations. Pilots do not try to second guess the controller, nor do controllers wonder if pilots will carry out instructions. As for the "trombone pattern", I presume you are referring to vectoring around Heathrow? Solutions have been proposed, but none has been totally satisfactory. Radar vectoring by experienced controllers who KNOW what is going on in the airspace would be difficult to beat with a cockpit-managed system. Are you seriously suggesting that pilots would have to be as familiar with airspace restrictions and routes as the controllers? It's all pie-in-the-sky!

Oh yes.... when GPS is jammed, which occurs not infrequently, what happens then?
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline  
Old 17th Apr 2009, 15:33
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 78
Posts: 840
Heathrow Director,

I am only quoting from the research that has been, and is being, done by a whole host of ATC systems and avionics manufacturers, by the Eurocontrol Experimental Centre, by the FAA, by the MITRE Corporation and others (including NATS). Clearly there is still some way to go but I am sure it will happen. As you may have guessed I am an old retired pilot, but I take a great interest in ATC matters because ATC and Flight Operations are many ways two sides of the same coin. As to pilot workload, most pilots' intial reactions are the same as yours....until they try it in extensive simulations. Equally, controllers are very sceptical until they try it in these same simulations. We are after all (and with good reason) both very conservative groups of people. I guess you and will just have to agree amicably to differ!
Bergerie1 is online now  
Old 17th Apr 2009, 17:16
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 345
For anybody who has the time to read it a great deal of information about how Eurocontrol has set about validating the integrity of ADS-B is available on their website. Just search for either Cascade or Cristal. The output tends to support Pelton Level and Bergerie1 rather than HD but it does agree with him that it isn't going to provide much benefit in the London TMA anytime soon.

A discussion on moving the ATC task from the ground to the air would be fun but surely should be in a separate thread as this one has already drifted a long way from its title.
eglnyt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.