Posted on 10/09/2008 12:24:34 PM PDT by lainie
A World War II-era air traffic network that often forces planes to take longer, zigzagging routes is costing U.S. airlines billions of dollars in wasted fuel while an upgrade to a satellite-based system has languished in the planning stages for more than a decade.
The $35 billion plan would replace the current radar system with the kind of GPS technology that has become commonplace in cars and cell phones. Supporters say it would triple air traffic capacity, reduce delays by at least half, improve safety and curb greenhouse gas emissions.
An AP analysis of federal and industry data found that if the new system were already in place, airlines could have saved more than $5 billion in fuel this year alone.
But funding delays and the complexities of the switchover have kept the project grounded. The government does not expect to have it up and running until the early 2020s, and without a major commitment, supporters warn that even that goal might be not be attainable.
The planned satellite-driven network, dubbed NextGen, would save fuel by ditching radar technology that is more than 50 years old and enabling GPS-equipped planes to fly the shortest route between two points: a straight line.
NextGen could save airlines at least 3.3 billion gallons of fuel a year — or more than $10 billion annually by 2025, based on today's fuel prices, according to FAA projections obtained by The AP.
Currently, jetliners move in single-file lines along narrow highways in the sky marked by radio beacons. Many of the routes gently zigzag from one beacon to the next, sometimes forcing cross-country flights to follow sweeping arcs and waste hundreds of gallons of fuel.
It's "the equivalent of using an electric typewriter when others are using computers," said David Castelveter..
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
When most Americans will be able to again afford to fly or take a vacation.
Imagine. They need GPS for that..............
Nah, the pilots are not free to fly straight to a destination. Ground controllers dictate where they go. "Proceed direct to Dagget" etc. They are told to fly directly toward a radionav beacon until otherwise told or handed off to another controller. Pilots will ask for a more direct route all the time and sometimes get permission, but the control is pretty rigid.
Just what we need, three times as many planes in the sky!
Great idea, until I read about GPS spoofing, and how terrorists might be trying that soon.
Airliners fly in "corridors" in order to make them easier to coordinate and to prevent mingling with general aviation craft.
Just have the pilots take their Garmin GPS with traffic control features.
Bug congressmen guard those controller jobs in their districts across the country very jealously. Makes it very difficult to switch to a more advanced system.
Heh..yeah. Tom Toms are cheaper at Best Buy and have those sexy Aussie accents besides.
Airliners fly in "corridors" since that is all that the earlier navigation systems allowed. Very easy to align your flight path to/from a navigation beacon without the need of a computer. Now, GPS allows one to follow a 'virtual' path to/from a virtual beacon.
First, general aviation aircraft do not typically have radar. They have trouble knowing the "big boys" are around. Second, air traffic controllers are VERY busy even with the computers. The corridors help a great deal in keeping the skies safe. Large airplanes flying on any path they choose would guarantee collision with smaller craft.
Also, communications between aircraft and the ground can be confusing now. Add random flight patterns, and systems would be very busy posting positional information for all aircraft.
VORs and directional finders are also "point to point", much like a virtual path. They date back to WWII, and proved to dangerous in that lower volume traffic.
It is still a safety edge to use corridors. Let us error on the side of safety.
My neighbor flies a small plane. He was just telling me how he gets off the ground, then engages the auto pilot and GPS and spends the ride looking out, watching for other aircraft. When he gets to his destination, he ‘unhooks’ from the GPS and lands. Cool stuff.
General aviation aircraft with radar are not operating at 36,000 feet with the big boys.
Second, air traffic controllers are VERY busy even with the computers. The corridors help a great deal in keeping the skies safe. Large airplanes flying on any path they choose would guarantee collision with smaller craft.
Large planes would not be flying "any path they choose". Coordination with controllers would still be required. The controllers job might even be easier with computers and large planes not all on the same route where minimum spacings tie up the system.
Who said the patterns would be random. Corridors could still be used, we would just have different corridors not dependent on fixed navigation beacons. GPS would allow not only vertical separation but horizontal separation in the corridors thus making them safer than the existing corridors.
There already is altitude separation with altimeters and "down looking" radar.
As long as commecial aircraft perform altitude adjustments in particular spots, one could achieve separation from general aviation.
Relying on computer ground tracking and rather high volume communcations would pose a problem during malfunctions or outages. Of course it is feasible.
I'd keep them in corridors near airports and over cities.
As each major airport already has navigation beacons and radar, that system would not radically change.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
