Computerized ATC
You may be able to automate some aspects of ATS however you won’t move any more traffic until you either build more runways or build aircraft that don’t need runways.
Aircraft recieve minimal delays enroute these days.
They get delayed trying to get on/off that strip of hotmix.
Aircraft recieve minimal delays enroute these days.
They get delayed trying to get on/off that strip of hotmix.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Build all the runways you like - it's the way you manage the terminal airspace and the surface operations that eventually determines capacity.
MJG
MJG
Last edited by mgahan; 3rd Jan 2018 at 00:39. Reason: fixed the typo
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Generally speaking I’d say demand & market-forces (with regulatory oversight - in safety/politically-sensitive industries) generally determine capacity/supply...
You can always squeeze more capacity out of airport and terminal ops by incremental tweaks, such as TBS for arrivals, requiring rolling starts on departure, optimising the departure and arrival sequence for wake turbulence, deprioritising GA flights etc etc etc.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there any such airport?
Surely you eventually come to a point when any more squeezing is impossible. I am thinking of one a/c crossing the holding point leaving the R/W as the next one touches down. That appears to me to be the limit. Or, am I missing something ?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reliance on technology would provide explicit utilization of separation standards. In some parts of the world that is often called a "by the book slowdown". Removing the human element in atc and leaving it in place in the cockpit would not improve efficiency at highly congested airports, the places where those efficiency gains are most needed.
Earlier initiatives aimed at reducing runway occupancy time include mandated rolling starts (ie no propping or stopping after entering the runway), no backtracking, preferred exit taxiways, generally better and tighter sequencing, adjusting the departure and departure/arrival sequence to achieve minimum wake turbulence delays, regardless of who taxys first, and so on. Automated integrated AMAN/DMAN is coming next to computerise the whole thing.
Yes, but these limits have been reached (at the busiest airports). They have reached, or very nearly reached, the point at which there is no further room for SAFE squeezing - haven’t they ? Surely any procedure which requires an a/c to still be on the R/W when another touches down is inherently dangerous ( you might get away with it for a while, but the time will come when you don’t). This certainly flies in the face of all previously accepted separation standards. I, & other ATCOS, certainly ran things pretty close occasionally, but I would be very dubious about building a continuous system on such procedures. Certainly if it was just because the authorities could not be bothered to supply the appropriate infrastructure. I would go so far as to say that such standards would be criminal, cynical & unacceptable in such circumstances.
Last edited by kcockayne; 4th Jan 2018 at 07:55. Reason: Spelling mistake
Yes, but these limits have been reached (at the busiest airports). They have reached, or very nearly reached, the point at which there is no further room for SAFE squeezing - haven’t they ? Surely any procedure which requires an a/c to still be on the R/W when another touches down is inherently dangerous ( you might get away with it for a while, but the time will come when you don’t). This certainly flies in the face of all previously accepted separation standards. I, & other ATCOS, certainly ran things pretty close occasionally, but I would be very dubious about building a continuous system on such procedures. Certainly if it was just because the authorities could not be bothered to supply the appropriate infrastructure. I would go so far as to say that such standards would be criminal, cynical & unacceptable in such circumstances.
Having a runway separation standard published, with defined conditions is way better, safer and more professional than running things pretty close occasionally. Either you have a separation standard or you don't. If you don't then you hold your hand up - that's part of the SMS too, and part of a just culture within the ANSP.
It had nothing to do with
the authorities could not be bothered to supply the appropriate infrastructure
In reply to parishiltons, & the statement that "having a R/W separation standard published, with defined conditions is way better, safer & more professional than running things pretty close occasionally. Either you have a separation standard, or you don't". I totally agree. I was not in any way trying to extol the virtues of "running things tight"; merely stating that this was necessary at times. The separation standard involved may not have been immediately apparent, but was generally covered by the old MATS Pt.1 "let out" of, "nothing in this manual shall prevent the ATCO from using his discretion in order to ensure the safety of a/c etc."
I just intended to illustrate that the individual ATCO had, at times, facilitated max. R/W utilization.; &, to indicate that I was not averse to the idea of the very minimum of adequate separation standards. But, I very much doubt that it will be possible to squeeze even more out of a system which is running very much at the tightest of margins.
Simply, we have reached, or very nearly have, the limit at the busiest of aerodromes.. When ATCOS "ran things pretty close", they did it professionally & safely & there was room to manoeuvre if the intended consequence (max. safe R/W utilization) was not going to be achieved. It strikes me that if you run things at their tightest, you will not be left with any alternative action possibilities. There is, despite your faith in "squeezing", an absolute limit beyond which we cannot go.
I just intended to illustrate that the individual ATCO had, at times, facilitated max. R/W utilization.; &, to indicate that I was not averse to the idea of the very minimum of adequate separation standards. But, I very much doubt that it will be possible to squeeze even more out of a system which is running very much at the tightest of margins.
Simply, we have reached, or very nearly have, the limit at the busiest of aerodromes.. When ATCOS "ran things pretty close", they did it professionally & safely & there was room to manoeuvre if the intended consequence (max. safe R/W utilization) was not going to be achieved. It strikes me that if you run things at their tightest, you will not be left with any alternative action possibilities. There is, despite your faith in "squeezing", an absolute limit beyond which we cannot go.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As technology and understanding improves there are ways and means to squeeze more out of any system and still remain safe.
Team Sky were/are legendary with their “aggregation of marginal gains”.
Take squeezing oranges for example. Ever watched those new-fangled machines in cafés and compared them with manually squeezing oranges - both in terms of wastage and output?
Beyond which we cannot go - yet.
As technology and understanding improves there are ways and means to squeeze more out of any system and still remain safe.
Team Sky were/are legendary with their “aggregation of marginal gains”.
Take squeezing oranges for example. Ever watched those new-fangled machines in cafés and compared them with manually squeezing oranges - both in terms of wastage and output?
As technology and understanding improves there are ways and means to squeeze more out of any system and still remain safe.
Team Sky were/are legendary with their “aggregation of marginal gains”.
Take squeezing oranges for example. Ever watched those new-fangled machines in cafés and compared them with manually squeezing oranges - both in terms of wastage and output?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: behind the fruit
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beyond which we cannot go - yet.
As technology and understanding improves there are ways and means to squeeze more out of any system and still remain safe.
Team Sky were/are legendary with their “aggregation of marginal gains”.
Take squeezing oranges for example. Ever watched those new-fangled machines in cafés and compared them with manually squeezing oranges - both in terms of wastage and output?
As technology and understanding improves there are ways and means to squeeze more out of any system and still remain safe.
Team Sky were/are legendary with their “aggregation of marginal gains”.
Take squeezing oranges for example. Ever watched those new-fangled machines in cafés and compared them with manually squeezing oranges - both in terms of wastage and output?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Rapunzel's tower
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
