Designing Tomorrow's Air Traffic Control Systems 72
aarondubrow writes According to FAA estimates, increasing congestion in the air transportation system of the United States, if unaddressed, will cost the American economy $22 billion annually in lost economic activity by 2022. MIT researcher Hamsa Balakrishnan and her team are making air traffic control systems more efficient through a combination of better models and new embedded technologies. Testing their algorithms at Logan Airport in Boston, they showed that by holding aircraft back for 4.5 minutes, they could improve flow on the runways and save nearly 100 pounds of fuel for each aircraft.
I have a suggestion... (Score:5, Funny)
Make sure the tower doesn't have software written by a company that went out of business, but still managed to get an update that can bring the whole thing down, and employ versioning in your datacenter backups...but if that doesn't work, ensure that copies of the software are uploaded to the planes themselves so that, in the event there's a group of socially awkward geniuses that can drive a Ferrari down a landing strip, they can download the software via an Ethernet cable and save everyone.
Re: (Score:1)
(for those that didn't get the joke: http://collider.com/scorpion-p... [collider.com] )
Re: (Score:2)
What no one has explained to me is why the plane could not just land on the runway in question. The premise was that the planes could not communicate with the tower, so everyone was in a holding pattern.
Once they were able to communicate with the plane in question, why not just tell it to land so they could download the copy of the software while on the ground?
The "Show Logic" was that the runway wasn't long enough for the plane to land without taking out a few blocks in the process.
Why they didn't land at the airport with no ground control was what didn't make sense to me - They can communicate with the pilot and all the runways are clear, so why not just hand someone at LAX the phone, let 'em land, and do everything else via Remote Desktop?
PAYWALL link (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
here you go [mit.edu]
and more related papers at http://web.mit.edu/hamsa/www/pubs.html [mit.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
That would seem fairly obvious. But I can say that as a passenger, I prefer to be away from the gate as soon as possible even if it means waiting in line and that may be why they do it.
what about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I was gonna say that. Maybe also track planes outside of national boundaries, so that we won't have situations like the Malaysian airliner that disappeared and we don't have any idea where to look for it.
Because having the US act as the worlds police force isn't good enough, we should also be the worlds air traffic control.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is one of the great myths the FAA has done nothing to correct, since they love the idea that people think we're going to start using a space-based system to replace radar - it's cool and modern.
ADS-B, the position reporting system that you're referring to that will supplement and eventually replace radar, does use GPS satellites to determine the aircraft's position. However, in the Continental US, that position information is sent via old-fashioned radios to land-based receivers.
Those terrestrial r
Re: (Score:2)
Business Continuity Plan (Score:1)
They’ve been spending money on an Operational continuity plan (OCP) for 13 years.
The FAA can only spend money on paperwork, not on productive products.
FAA garbage doc 1 [faa.gov]
FAA garbage doc 2 [faa.gov]
Do a keyword search for OCP or BCP to see whats going on.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"If the FAA was a private corporation this would never be an issue."
Q: Ummmmmm........ yeah. So Mr. AC, what have you been spending your time on?
A: Yeah, I just stare at my desk, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too, I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
Q: this continuity plan you are working on, does it generate any revenue?
A: Not really. I mean if the company gets bought out everyone will be laid off any way so
Re: (Score:2)
They do have redundant backups: enough spare capacity exists in the other centers to carry the load the Chicago center dropped. Switchover to operations at alternate facilities was accomplished (and reversed) without incident. Yes, it took some time and there were substantial flight delays, but this is a once-in-a-great-while type of failure.
Or are you talking about backups so expansive that in the event of a problem, no one need ever know anything ever happened, whether we're talking about the failure of
Purchase $35.95 Get a free air freshener... (Score:1)
No thank you...
Use more airports (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can you say "Economics"? Airlines are corporations. Corporations exist to return profits to their investors. Fewer hubs = lower people and equipment expense = higher profit. Seems we used to do it that way - but that was when the airline routes were REGULATED for the public good ... that went by the board as soon as they got enough congressmen in their pockets. God (or the deity of your choice) forbid we should worry about providing public services that work and are convenient and useful. (Gets down off the
Re: (Score:2)
Seems we used to do it that way - but that was when the airline routes were REGULATED for the public good ... that went by the board as soon as they got enough congressmen in their pockets
You're conveniently forgetting how expensive airfares were in those good ol' days.
Re: (Score:1)
I sure would love it if flying a couple states over could be done from one of my nearby regional or municipal airports without needing a private plane (or a buddy with one) to do so.
Pounds (Score:2)
improve flow on the runways and save nearly 100 pounds of fuel for each aircraft.
100 pounds of fuel, or 100 pounds of fuel?
Re: (Score:3)
100 pounds of fuel. ;)
Re: (Score:3)
99 pounds of fuel on the jet,
99 pounds of fuel,
Re: (Score:2)
Hose 'em down, light it up,
0 pounds of fuel on the jet.
Re: (Score:2)
99 pounds of fuel on the jet,
99 pounds of fuel,
take one out
make it aloft
22 billion lost (Score:3)
Couple of issues (Score:4, Interesting)
1st this was done 4 years ago. The future is now.
But mostly...
Why were none of the tests more than 4 hours long? What happens after the test period, do they need to recover or something?
If this is so efficient why are we talking about a 4 year old test instead of the implementation 3 years ago?!?
Free-routing (Score:5, Informative)
The Economist has a great article on free-routing [economist.com]. Not only does this save time & fuel, but a "continuous descent approach" is also quieter at airports.
Re: (Score:3)
Old news...problem already addressed. (Score:2)
NASA is on it (Score:3)
People often forget that the first A in NASA stands for aeronautics. They have been hard at work at fully computerizing air traffic control. However as you can imagine this requires lots of testing given the potentially fatal consequences. NASA has held several competition rounds among contractors for the next air traffic control system, providing feedback to all candidates for the next round.
Here [siam.org] is one such paper. There are many others, from various academia and industry consortia. The work they are doing is rather cool.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA ..... They have been hard at work at fully computerizing air traffic control.
But then
NASA has held several competition rounds among contractors
So NASA really isn't doing the work. They are contracting it out. And as this will inevitably be a multi billion dollar contract, a shitstorm will ensue among all the losing bidders. This will tie the contract up in courts for decades as nobody is willing to admit defeat and just walk away. Meanwhile, stock up on vacuum tubes to keep the old equipment running.
If NASA (or better yet the FAA) just told the likes of Boeing and Lockheed to fuck off and build it themselves, the resulting butt-hurt would
Re: (Score:2)
This might be news to you, but NASA does very little work in house. Most things are contracted out.
Re: (Score:2)
This might be news to you,
No its not. I used to work for a government contractor (NASA and other departments). If NASA tried to roll their own, we would have gone to Congress to have them defunded to the point that they would have been an organization consisting of a bind guy with a checkbook and an 'Approved' stamp.
What is new? (Score:2)
We Don't Need ATC Any More (Score:1)
This story frustrates the hell out of me. Once again, the government refuses to realize that the entire air traffic control system is out of date and no longer needed. Instead of improving their algorithms, they should be dismantling all the ARTCCs and TRACONs, leaving only the tower flowers and ground controllers in the major airports. Before the Slashdot community gets it collective panties in collective bunches, please realize this is a simple problem of government seizing control over something at a
Re: (Score:2)
What a libertarian fantasy world you live in. All the lawyers in the world can't help you if you're dead because of someone else's malfeasance.
More Trains, and faster trains. (Score:1)
That is all.
Totally Autonomous system (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I Invite you to watch this. http://youtu.be/d9r3H4iHFZk [youtu.be]
TCAS, Mode S, and IFR (Score:1)
Right now, if I want to fly from LAX to JFK, I need to wait for ATC to slot me so I’ll likely be able to land without delay upon reaching JFK. Why do I still have to talk to ATC to do this? Why are humans even involved when computers could do this instantaneously? I should just be able to file my flight plan from a laptop or smartphone, and the system tells ME when I need to depart (i.e. I get an email stating “depart RWY 19R 1900Z to 1905Z). This would make ground control’s job a hell of
Re: (Score:2)
The risk of en-route collision is really, really small.
this risk of collision increases exponentially as all the planes bound for JFK, Newark, LaGuardia, LAX, SFO etc. get closer to the airport. I live in the SF Bay Area, on busy flight night and there is no fog you can see them lined up for landing for miles and miles, two abreast on the approach to 28L/R and that is when you can't have every pilot deciding for themselves what order they go in and how far apart they are.
As for TCAS it is a good thing, bu
Re: (Score:2)