***The NextGen Thread***

I agree with the above statement, congestion isn't about keeping them seperated in the air, it's about keeping them away from each other in/around airports. If an airport can only handle 60 arrivals an hour and between 15 airlines there are 80 scheduled to be there in that hour, somethings got to give.
 
I don't know about ORD, but I talked to a few pilots who fly into IAD and their opinion was the new runway was pretty useless.
 
I don't know about ORD, but I talked to a few pilots who fly into IAD and their opinion was the new runway was pretty useless.


I've never been to Dulles, so I'm not sure on that one. Tomorrow's the first time back to ORD since the new runway opened, so I'll let you know how that works out! Winds are supposed to be NW at 20-30K, so I doubt we'll land on the new one; most likely 32L...
 
This has proven to be quite a decent thread here and after one of my classes today, I thought I would chime in again...

One of my professors is a 20 year veteran controller at Miami center and was telling me they are routinely routing all flights from Central and South America going to ORD over the Bahamas and are pulling 20 miles in trail that far out as requested by ZJX. ZTL is being requested by the center to their north and so on... The NextGen ATC will primarily help the centers flow traffic in a more direct route, and thus creating more congestion at the airports. There is absolutely nothing we can do about wake turbulence and the separation involved with it. If we were to reduce minimums, we would be compromising safety. Eventually in time, airports may have a way to create a windshear machine to break up the vorticies, but there would be a whole new safety aspect involved with this... Nothing we have technologically at this point is even remotely feasible to reduce congestion.

I understand the runway layout at ORD is a nightmare but proper staffing and utilization of current infrastructure would allow a great deal more LAHSO operations and help flow run better, but if they get the shaft from ZAU and ZID, who are only running more traffic, more efficiently, the situation will go from siht to "oh F"...

As for LAX, I really hate to be the one to say this but with having a few contacts there, I would like to try to shed a little light. I will be very politically incorrect and say a great deal of the problems with runway incursions, and other issues at LAX is the extreme influx of foreign pilots. You will see the same thing at MIA, only MIA is mostly dealing with latin carriers whereas LAX is dealing with carriers who routinely forget that English is the official language of aviation (they mostly say the Asians are the worst with this).

No matter what happens, technology will evolve and so will people but with the current lack of staffing and support, there is only so much we can do with what we are given and until staffing and support are improved, no technology will make anything better...

My$.02
 
Hmm, I think some of you guys aren't thinking about the bigger picture. Nextgen isn't just about more direct routes. Aviation technology is increasing by leaps and bounds. Think about what new stuff like ADS-B and RNP will do. Hell, RNP is allowing aircraft to land at airports that could never bring in 737+ size aircraft on conventional procedures. Also, in the airspace modeling/simulation arena, software is being developed that would reroute flights on direct routes when an operational advantage exists. Another aspect will be constant decent approaches. Nextgen isn't just about increasing capacity, it's also saving people/companies time and money. Nextgen is a long way off and it's gonna take baby steps to get there. All in good time gentlemen.
 
Hmm, I think some of you guys aren't thinking about the bigger picture. Nextgen isn't just about more direct routes. Aviation technology is increasing by leaps and bounds. Think about what new stuff like ADS-B and RNP will do. Hell, RNP is allowing aircraft to land at airports that could never bring in 737+ size aircraft on conventional procedures. Also, in the airspace modeling/simulation arena, software is being developed that would reroute flights on direct routes when an operational advantage exists. Another aspect will be constant decent approaches. Nextgen isn't just about increasing capacity, it's also saving people/companies time and money. Nextgen is a long way off and it's gonna take baby steps to get there. All in good time gentlemen.

I don't think anyone here is disagreeing with your stance; my initial post was intended to disprove the validity of the article the OP provided the link to, which I feel was misleading. (Case in point, the graphic of the flight from DC to Boston) I'd like to learn more about it, it's just hard to get past all of the doomsday "ATCers are gonna lose their jobs" sentiments.
 
Um guys. We are forgetting the number one thing about GPS v. ground based navaids. GPS is NOT affected by weather. This means that MRAs would be less, MOCAs would almost disappear, and yes Oceanic operations would be easier/safer. Other than that, I wouldn't see much more of a difference from RNAV routes now, minus they would probably be a little more direct. Also, it would allow for better navigation in Alaska.
 
OK, what no one here is addressing is the issues facing the terminals... There can be improvements to current approaches, but for the most part, direct descent approaches are in place at most airports, and those that only utilize stepdown approaches do so for a reason (ie. mountainous regions). The problem that can not be resolved by technology is, what do we do with all the planes who were sped up and reach the terminals in a larger bunch than before. The only thing that can resolve the delay issues is better staffing and utilization of current resources. I mean really, think about how smooth ORD would run if they were to utilize 4 or 5 of their runways with LAHSO ops which is feasible given the proper personnel.

My$.02
 
part of the plan is to make sure they don't get there in a large bunch. see my post above about rerouting on a direct route if an operational advantage exists. i have seen the software being tested.
 
:yeahthat:well said.

that's also more or less congruent with what I said about not re-routing ALL air traffic down that pipeline.. if they can re-route 20 flights up and down simultaneously at one time between airports.. the estimated savings at the end of the day/week/month/quarter/year should reflect that it was a good choice.. given they probably have some hardcore analysts taking care of the projections ahead of time to know in advance if it's going to be worth it..

as long as the savings are greater than the cost to run the system in the projected manner, for any amount of air traffic.. it's worth it.

Given: PPG (Jet-a) = 3.75 for reference
Pilot Salary = $100/hr for reference only

Current route from Boston, MA to Washington, DC = 585 miles
Jet-A consumed = 275 gal ($1031.25)
Time = ~1:48 ($185 to pilot)

Projected route from Boston, MA to Washington, DC = 400 miles
Jet-A consumed = 184 gal ($690)
Time = ~1:25 ($120 to pilot)

savings = Jet-A = $341.25
pilot time = $65 (pilot still gets it, but not on this flight!)

total = $406.25/flight from Boston, MA to Washington, DC.

Let's say... in a 24 hour time period we get the projected 20 planes at a time in the new lanes throughout the entire span here.. every 1.5 hours (rounding up from 1:25) a new plane enters the airspace as previous flight leaves..

24/1.5 = 16 flight periods

16 flight periods @ 20 flights each = 320 flights total

320 flights @ the lower rate = (406.25 savings)*320 flights throughout the day

$130,000 saved in a single 24 hour time period.

Keep in mind these are all estimates and the times/fuel usages are from that old article I originally posted. I threw in numbers for the flight #'s in a day and how many flights down the new lanes as well.

take it with a grain of salt but I see potential there.
 
Back
Top