5 ms·

How to fix flying

106 points by pmcpinto 10y ago

dbalan 10y ago
Being very bad and ATC sim games, my excuse was that real ATC's use a lot more tech than a keyboard and map of airplanes. Now I stand corrected.
AnodyneComplex 10y ago
This seems oddly filled with misinformation: flight paths aren't locked into flying over radar stations. And what exactly are we trying to fix? The sky is big, it's not like we have a lack of flight space over the centre of the country... None of the suggestions seems to imply any big efficiency or safety gain.
- Piskvorrr 10y ago
  it's not like we have a lack of flight space over the centre of the country - Certainly not. It's near the major airports where things get crowded.
  - AnodyneComplex 10y ago
    But none of the suggestions would increase the density of aircraft around major airports. They're already operating at runway capacity during peak times.
    - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
      They would increase the ability of the controllers to deal with that density. Or more precisely, they would offload it to software. As described, there is a lot of tedium, inaccuracy, and potential for human error in the ATC system. They're passing strips of paper back and forth, and making sure that no two strips put two planes in the same spot, and relaying the information over verbal radio commands. It's begging to be automated.
      - bryondowd 10y ago
        Yep, and the FAA is working on automating and improving all the time. Being tied up by funding seems to be the main issue. I'm a developer working on flight data input/output, and it amazes me how old so much of the tech we use is. It's not that we are unwilling or unable to upgrade, it's a lack of resources. I get to listen to managers talking about how they are finagling multiple funding sources just to try getting 'simple' things like ethernet equipment into the towers so we can get off of serial interfaces, and which group is responsible for what and how much. I know very little about the financial end of things, or what would or would not solve the problem, but it does seem like a saner funding system would go a long way. Most people I've spoken to here seem skeptical at best about suggestions of breaking us off from the FAA.
      - AnodyneComplex 10y ago
        It's of course fine to suggest the current system could be improved. But it doesn't rise to the level of the title "how to fix flying". The current system, for all of its warts, has proven to be amazingly safe.
wheaties 10y ago
I can comment that there's been times when I've been on flight following and switching to a new ATC controller causes problems. I've been asked to drop to under class Bravo airspace midway through a transit. I've been ping-ponged to different people because the new guy has too much workload. I've also had to play the radio hunt game when the given frequency to report to was currently not being used.
route3 10y ago
HN'ers might appreciate learning the FAA has a developer-friendly program called SWIM [0] to help facilitate getting realtime FAA data (flight plans, weather data, etc) in to the hands of coders. I recently attended the SWIM Developer Workshop at the Volpe Center (near MIT) and really enjoyed it. There's quite a bit to the SWIM program. The onboarding can be a bit tricky though and you have to know your way around site-to-site VPNs. I recently completed the onboarding process and am receiving live flight plan data -- proposed flights, en route, completed etc. Would be curious to know if there are others on HN that are working with SWIM data or if there are companies that are hiring in this space. [0] http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/swim/ http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/swim/
- wrigby 10y ago
  I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the differences between using SWIM vs a commercial product like FlightAware. From my cursory glance at SWIM, it seems like it's probably better for getting flight plans and weather info, but FlightAware may be more useful for getting in-flight status. Does that seem consistent with your experience?
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    Not a SWIM developer, but it looks like SWIM is the way to get a data feed to allow you build a flightaware workalike.
    - wrigby 10y ago
      Makes sense. I know FlightAware operates their own network of ADS-B receivers, which augments the FAA data. I should look into whether or not that changes things, but I imagine the SWIM data feed doesn't have many holes.
njovin 10y ago
There's always room for improvement, but even the first incident outlined in the article shows how far we've come and how safe air travel is. - The 777's TCAS alerted them to the problem and recommended an evasive action, which they took - The Controller, despite not having followed his normal procedure prior to issuing the takeoff clearance, noticed his mistake around the same time the TCAS went off in the 777 and ordered evasive action to the Cessna - The FAA's reporting system allowed the pilot to report the incident which was followed up on with an official investigation after which several actions were taken, including training, QA reviews in the SFO tower, establishing a panel to review the SFO transition corridor, etc. The road to flight safety is unfortunately paved with tragedy but that's the case with anything transportation-related. The author's proposal to break ATC away from the FAA doesn't do much to fix the problem that caused the highlighted incident (human error). Although a better-funded ATC system might have more technical controls in place, when you're dealing with one of the busiest airspaces in the world issues like this are going to occur. A better solution might be to ban non-commercial traffic from certain Class B airspaces - not that I'm in favor of that.
- compiler-guy 10y ago
  Yes, the amazing thing about that incident isn't that it happened, it's the number of simultaneous failures required for it to happen. And even in the face of so many failures, there was only a very close call, rather than a full incident. That seems like a pretty good outcome to me. The system could still use improvement, sure, but it is still pretty darn good.
- jedmeyers 10y ago
  > The Controller ... ordered evasive action to the Cessna From the tape it looks like the controller asked Cessna to 'maintain visual separation', which is a standard procedure for VFR and not an 'evasive action'.
  - njovin 10y ago
    You're right. He was told to 'pass behind that aircraft.' and since the report stated that the 777 saw the Cessna turning to avoid I sort of conflated the two things in my mind.
dmitrygr 10y ago
:( s/sabateur/saboteur/g
cmurf 10y ago
It's pretty inefficient. Consider the communications are AM based, line of sight, and a single frequency can't stand two transmissions at once, or the transmission as a whole is garbled. But that's how directives are given and acknowledged between ATC and pilot.
- throwaway_xx9 10y ago
  Those are all features. Line of sight means don't propagate forever. Stepping on somebody else is evident to everybody of a lost transmission. The only real complaints about radio transmissions are that better training is needed, and there's limited number of conversations per hour possible, sometimes being a limiting factor on landings.
callesgg 10y ago
That header animation is amazing :)
Animats 10y ago
Dependence on GPS isn't a panacea. GPS does fail and can be interfered with. There's talk of bringing back LORAN in case that happens.[1] The FAA is decommissioning about 25% of the VOR stations, which are usually at airports. (The big acre-sized circular antenna farm west of 101 just north of SJC is a VOR.) It's good to have several completely independent systems. [1] http://www.gps.gov/policy/legislation/loran-c/ http://www.gps.gov/policy/legislation/loran-c/ [2] http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/151123_VORs_Approved_for_Discontinuance.pdf http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/151123_VORs_Approved_for_D...
d33 10y ago
Surprised nobody mentioned TSA pre-check. Giving any money to TSA sounds like a bad idea to me.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  I gave my (company's) $50 to get Nexus (which includes GE and TSA-Pre). If a tiny slice of that makes it's way to TSA, it's still massively worth it to me. I can land and Logan from an international flight and be in a cab headed home in 10 minutes from the gate. On the way in, I can pretty reliably plan for 15 minutes from the cab to my gate. I don't actually cut it that close intentionally, but it's a massive win compared to the cattle lines. For the $50 I paid to be interviewed by 2 US CBP agents and 1 Canadian border agent, I don't think they're making a profit on the Nexus program that I need to worry about my largess funding the establishment.
sokoloff 10y ago
>Instead of the government paying for air traffic control (currently funding comes via an excise tax on fuel and airline tickets), flyers would pay for it directly. A portion of every gallon of fuel or ticket sold would pay for the national airspace and air traffic control system. If air traffic control were self-funded, then the use tax could be lifted and ATC could get immediate access to cash without having to appeal to Congress. I don't get it. There is already a fuel tax and a tax on tickets (as the article reports). That's how flyers pay for it directly now. I don't see how that's different from a portion of every gallon and ticket sold. That's literally what it is today (and what the article is reporting). What am I missing?
based2 10y ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/4tr3r1/out_of_air_traffic_control_how_to_fix_americas/d5jmjh8 https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/4tr3r1/out_of_air...

106 points by pmcpinto 10y ago

Being very bad and ATC sim games, my excuse was that real ATC's use a lot more tech than a keyboard and map of airplanes. Now I stand corrected.

AnodyneComplex 10y ago

This seems oddly filled with misinformation: flight paths aren't locked into flying over radar stations. And what exactly are we trying to fix? The sky is big, it's not like we have a lack of flight space over the centre of the country... None of the suggestions seems to imply any big efficiency or safety gain.

Piskvorrr 10y ago
it's not like we have a lack of flight space over the centre of the country - Certainly not. It's near the major airports where things get crowded.
- AnodyneComplex 10y ago
  But none of the suggestions would increase the density of aircraft around major airports. They're already operating at runway capacity during peak times.
  - LeifCarrotson 10y ago
    They would increase the ability of the controllers to deal with that density. Or more precisely, they would offload it to software. As described, there is a lot of tedium, inaccuracy, and potential for human error in the ATC system. They're passing strips of paper back and forth, and making sure that no two strips put two planes in the same spot, and relaying the information over verbal radio commands. It's begging to be automated.
    - bryondowd 10y ago
      Yep, and the FAA is working on automating and improving all the time. Being tied up by funding seems to be the main issue. I'm a developer working on flight data input/output, and it amazes me how old so much of the tech we use is. It's not that we are unwilling or unable to upgrade, it's a lack of resources. I get to listen to managers talking about how they are finagling multiple funding sources just to try getting 'simple' things like ethernet equipment into the towers so we can get off of serial interfaces, and which group is responsible for what and how much. I know very little about the financial end of things, or what would or would not solve the problem, but it does seem like a saner funding system would go a long way. Most people I've spoken to here seem skeptical at best about suggestions of breaking us off from the FAA.
    - AnodyneComplex 10y ago
      It's of course fine to suggest the current system could be improved. But it doesn't rise to the level of the title "how to fix flying". The current system, for all of its warts, has proven to be amazingly safe.

wheaties 10y ago

I can comment that there's been times when I've been on flight following and switching to a new ATC controller causes problems. I've been asked to drop to under class Bravo airspace midway through a transit. I've been ping-ponged to different people because the new guy has too much workload. I've also had to play the radio hunt game when the given frequency to report to was currently not being used.

route3 10y ago

HN'ers might appreciate learning the FAA has a developer-friendly program called SWIM [0] to help facilitate getting realtime FAA data (flight plans, weather data, etc) in to the hands of coders. I recently attended the SWIM Developer Workshop at the Volpe Center (near MIT) and really enjoyed it. There's quite a bit to the SWIM program. The onboarding can be a bit tricky though and you have to know your way around site-to-site VPNs. I recently completed the onboarding process and am receiving live flight plan data -- proposed flights, en route, completed etc. Would be curious to know if there are others on HN that are working with SWIM data or if there are companies that are hiring in this space. [0] http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/swim/ http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/programs/swim/

wrigby 10y ago
I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the differences between using SWIM vs a commercial product like FlightAware. From my cursory glance at SWIM, it seems like it's probably better for getting flight plans and weather info, but FlightAware may be more useful for getting in-flight status. Does that seem consistent with your experience?
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Not a SWIM developer, but it looks like SWIM is the way to get a data feed to allow you build a flightaware workalike.
  - wrigby 10y ago
    Makes sense. I know FlightAware operates their own network of ADS-B receivers, which augments the FAA data. I should look into whether or not that changes things, but I imagine the SWIM data feed doesn't have many holes.

njovin 10y ago

There's always room for improvement, but even the first incident outlined in the article shows how far we've come and how safe air travel is. - The 777's TCAS alerted them to the problem and recommended an evasive action, which they took - The Controller, despite not having followed his normal procedure prior to issuing the takeoff clearance, noticed his mistake around the same time the TCAS went off in the 777 and ordered evasive action to the Cessna - The FAA's reporting system allowed the pilot to report the incident which was followed up on with an official investigation after which several actions were taken, including training, QA reviews in the SFO tower, establishing a panel to review the SFO transition corridor, etc. The road to flight safety is unfortunately paved with tragedy but that's the case with anything transportation-related. The author's proposal to break ATC away from the FAA doesn't do much to fix the problem that caused the highlighted incident (human error). Although a better-funded ATC system might have more technical controls in place, when you're dealing with one of the busiest airspaces in the world issues like this are going to occur. A better solution might be to ban non-commercial traffic from certain Class B airspaces - not that I'm in favor of that.

compiler-guy 10y ago
Yes, the amazing thing about that incident isn't that it happened, it's the number of simultaneous failures required for it to happen. And even in the face of so many failures, there was only a very close call, rather than a full incident. That seems like a pretty good outcome to me. The system could still use improvement, sure, but it is still pretty darn good.
jedmeyers 10y ago
> The Controller ... ordered evasive action to the Cessna From the tape it looks like the controller asked Cessna to 'maintain visual separation', which is a standard procedure for VFR and not an 'evasive action'.
- njovin 10y ago
  You're right. He was told to 'pass behind that aircraft.' and since the report stated that the 777 saw the Cessna turning to avoid I sort of conflated the two things in my mind.

dmitrygr 10y ago

:( s/sabateur/saboteur/g

cmurf 10y ago

It's pretty inefficient. Consider the communications are AM based, line of sight, and a single frequency can't stand two transmissions at once, or the transmission as a whole is garbled. But that's how directives are given and acknowledged between ATC and pilot.

throwaway_xx9 10y ago
Those are all features. Line of sight means don't propagate forever. Stepping on somebody else is evident to everybody of a lost transmission. The only real complaints about radio transmissions are that better training is needed, and there's limited number of conversations per hour possible, sometimes being a limiting factor on landings.

callesgg 10y ago

That header animation is amazing :)

Animats 10y ago

Dependence on GPS isn't a panacea. GPS does fail and can be interfered with. There's talk of bringing back LORAN in case that happens.[1] The FAA is decommissioning about 25% of the VOR stations, which are usually at airports. (The big acre-sized circular antenna farm west of 101 just north of SJC is a VOR.) It's good to have several completely independent systems. [1] http://www.gps.gov/policy/legislation/loran-c/ http://www.gps.gov/policy/legislation/loran-c/ [2] http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/151123_VORs_Approved_for_Discontinuance.pdf http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/151123_VORs_Approved_for_D...

d33 10y ago

Surprised nobody mentioned TSA pre-check. Giving any money to TSA sounds like a bad idea to me.

sokoloff 10y ago
I gave my (company's) $50 to get Nexus (which includes GE and TSA-Pre). If a tiny slice of that makes it's way to TSA, it's still massively worth it to me. I can land and Logan from an international flight and be in a cab headed home in 10 minutes from the gate. On the way in, I can pretty reliably plan for 15 minutes from the cab to my gate. I don't actually cut it that close intentionally, but it's a massive win compared to the cattle lines. For the $50 I paid to be interviewed by 2 US CBP agents and 1 Canadian border agent, I don't think they're making a profit on the Nexus program that I need to worry about my largess funding the establishment.

sokoloff 10y ago

>Instead of the government paying for air traffic control (currently funding comes via an excise tax on fuel and airline tickets), flyers would pay for it directly. A portion of every gallon of fuel or ticket sold would pay for the national airspace and air traffic control system. If air traffic control were self-funded, then the use tax could be lifted and ATC could get immediate access to cash without having to appeal to Congress. I don't get it. There is already a fuel tax and a tax on tickets (as the article reports). That's how flyers pay for it directly now. I don't see how that's different from a portion of every gallon and ticket sold. That's literally what it is today (and what the article is reporting). What am I missing?

based2 10y ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/4tr3r1/out_of_air_traffic_control_how_to_fix_americas/d5jmjh8 https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/4tr3r1/out_of_air...