4 ms·

"The sky is big" is a fallacy in aviation because aircraft don't move unconstrained in 3D space. Typically they are restricted to narrow corridors where collisi

"The sky is big" is a fallacy in aviation because aircraft don't move unconstrained in 3D space. Typically they are restricted to narrow corridors where collision probability greatly increases. I imagine the same applies to air commute, considering most people will be converging into a small number of waypoints.

iaw 10y ago
That was my assessment as well. Even worse for commuter vehicles because of the various property laws and regional egress requirements.
- FabHK 10y ago
  A couple of points: a) you don't have to stick to airways. They're largely for ease of planning and navigation with ground-based navigation aids (NDBs, VORs). You can easily fly off airways, and (in general aviation planes during visual flight) nearly always do. b) with the advent of GPS, "direct" flight routes (not involving airways) are becoming increasingly common. c) The "big sky" is not a fallacy. Think about it: first, on the ground you can only drive where there are streets. In the sky, you can fly everywhere (even on a 2-D plane), plus then you have the third dimension. There is plenty of space, and congestion won't be a problem unless regulatory/technical issues impose bottlenecks. Airports are natural bottlenecks, but what is envisioned here are VTOL aircraft, so the number of suitable take off and landing places would multiply. d) The "navigation paradox" [1] is that improved precision in navigation leads to increased risk of collision, because where in the past airplanes where only approximately on an airway (and would most likely miss each other in case of ATC mistake), now they're precisely on the airway (and will collide in case of ATC mistake), see the case of the GOL and Embraer in Brazil [2]. However, that is a shortcoming of current ATC practices, not inherent in flying. e) I don't understand your point regarding property law. You can hop on a Cessna at Palo Alto or San Carlos airport and fly over the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, Oracle, Stanford, SLAC, San Jose, with no problem. The airspace is there and it's open. Bottom line: with modern navigation methods, air space congestion will only become a problem after personal aircraft have become tremendously popular and prevalent, if at all. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_paradox [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Flight_1907 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_...

iaw 10y ago

That was my assessment as well. Even worse for commuter vehicles because of the various property laws and regional egress requirements.

FabHK 10y ago
A couple of points: a) you don't have to stick to airways. They're largely for ease of planning and navigation with ground-based navigation aids (NDBs, VORs). You can easily fly off airways, and (in general aviation planes during visual flight) nearly always do. b) with the advent of GPS, "direct" flight routes (not involving airways) are becoming increasingly common. c) The "big sky" is not a fallacy. Think about it: first, on the ground you can only drive where there are streets. In the sky, you can fly everywhere (even on a 2-D plane), plus then you have the third dimension. There is plenty of space, and congestion won't be a problem unless regulatory/technical issues impose bottlenecks. Airports are natural bottlenecks, but what is envisioned here are VTOL aircraft, so the number of suitable take off and landing places would multiply. d) The "navigation paradox" [1] is that improved precision in navigation leads to increased risk of collision, because where in the past airplanes where only approximately on an airway (and would most likely miss each other in case of ATC mistake), now they're precisely on the airway (and will collide in case of ATC mistake), see the case of the GOL and Embraer in Brazil [2]. However, that is a shortcoming of current ATC practices, not inherent in flying. e) I don't understand your point regarding property law. You can hop on a Cessna at Palo Alto or San Carlos airport and fly over the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, Oracle, Stanford, SLAC, San Jose, with no problem. The airspace is there and it's open. Bottom line: with modern navigation methods, air space congestion will only become a problem after personal aircraft have become tremendously popular and prevalent, if at all. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_paradox [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_Flight_1907 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gol_Transportes_A%C3%A9reos_...