3 ms·

Airspace is used very inefficiently right now. With today's tech it's ridiculous we're still using primarily human vision for collision avoidance in most condi

Airspace is used very inefficiently right now. With today's tech it's ridiculous we're still using primarily human vision for collision avoidance in most conditions, and in instrument conditions, spacing is typically 3nm. If you mostly have maneuverable VTOLs or even with more automated systems on traditional planes, you could safely bring down that spacing considerably. Imagine if we required cars on the highway to keep even a 1 mile spacing/following distance and then complained about highway congestion.

Nzen 3y ago
Perhaps the distance requirements reflect airplane wakes, rather than collision avoidance [0]. Analagously, I don't like to follow cars closely on wet roads, given the plume of side spray [1]. [0] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap7_section_4.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... subsection 7-4-9, titled Air Traffic Wake Turbulence Separations [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-1-btUcMiA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-1-btUcMiA 20 seconds long
- aeternum 3y ago
  Wake turbulence is mostly a concern for small planes following large planes. In the right conditions (pilots visually maintaining separation), planes do get quite close and at many airports like SFO, it's the only way to accommodate all the scheduled flights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLCcxCdrL5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLCcxCdrL5w
mminer237 3y ago
> spacing is typically 3nm For anyone else not that familiar with aviation and very confused, this means three nautical miles—about 3½ regular miles, not that it's smaller than a transistor fin.
jjav 3y ago
> Imagine if we required cars on the highway to keep even a 1 mile spacing Distance doesn't matter, what matters is time. Planes traveling at say 500 knots obviously need more safety margin distance than cars traveling an order of magnitude slower.

Nzen 3y ago

Perhaps the distance requirements reflect airplane wakes, rather than collision avoidance [0]. Analagously, I don't like to follow cars closely on wet roads, given the plume of side spray [1]. [0] https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap7_section_4.html https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html... subsection 7-4-9, titled Air Traffic Wake Turbulence Separations [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-1-btUcMiA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-1-btUcMiA 20 seconds long

aeternum 3y ago
Wake turbulence is mostly a concern for small planes following large planes. In the right conditions (pilots visually maintaining separation), planes do get quite close and at many airports like SFO, it's the only way to accommodate all the scheduled flights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLCcxCdrL5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLCcxCdrL5w

mminer237 3y ago

> spacing is typically 3nm For anyone else not that familiar with aviation and very confused, this means three nautical miles—about 3½ regular miles, not that it's smaller than a transistor fin.

jjav 3y ago

> Imagine if we required cars on the highway to keep even a 1 mile spacing Distance doesn't matter, what matters is time. Planes traveling at say 500 knots obviously need more safety margin distance than cars traveling an order of magnitude slower.