NextGen Thread Blog
<script type="text/javascript"><!--
google_ad_client = "pub-9955700224938553";
/* 120x600, created 6/16/09 */
google_ad_slot = "0946697963";
google_ad_width = 120;
google_ad_height = 600;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
________________________________________
________________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
google_ad_client = "pub-9955700224938553";
/* 120x600, created 6/16/09 */
google_ad_slot = "0946697963";
google_ad_width = 120;
google_ad_height = 600;
//-->
</script>
<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
Quote:
Originally Posted by raydon
i'm sitting here at work at my winery with nothing to do.. So i decided to start looking into our future of atc technologies.
popular mechanics has a nice article outlining the general concepts and analysis of these systems and their implementation.
Just thought i'd post it here for everyone to use as reference if you want to buff up your knowledge base ahead of time.
here's a link to the pop mech article.
one thought of caution for us.. It's time to square up those pegs.. Faa hr is probably going to slim down once the systems get fully integrated.
"this procedure is known as self-separation, because it transfers to pilots some of the responsibility for deciding how close they can safely fly to other aircraft — a task now handled by air traffic controllers. As one retired controller says, "they won't have to ask, ‘mother, may i?' as often."
here's another good example of how it may effect things in the future...
You know the gauntlet on the east coast? The creme de la creme of the atc world.. Big traffic, big pay?
more info from the faa as well.
popular mechanics has a nice article outlining the general concepts and analysis of these systems and their implementation.
Just thought i'd post it here for everyone to use as reference if you want to buff up your knowledge base ahead of time.
here's a link to the pop mech article.
one thought of caution for us.. It's time to square up those pegs.. Faa hr is probably going to slim down once the systems get fully integrated.
"this procedure is known as self-separation, because it transfers to pilots some of the responsibility for deciding how close they can safely fly to other aircraft — a task now handled by air traffic controllers. As one retired controller says, "they won't have to ask, ‘mother, may i?' as often."
here's another good example of how it may effect things in the future...
You know the gauntlet on the east coast? The creme de la creme of the atc world.. Big traffic, big pay?
more info from the faa as well.
________________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by atc_ret_2003
there is no doubt that the system is sorely in need of upgrading and also, those of you just starting out in this business are probably going to be exposed to several mutations and/or reincarnations of nextgen over the coming years.
However, nextgen doesn't appear to me to be the "cure-all" that they are touting it to be. There are several places where they will have to make modifications. Probably the most important one centers around this statement from the article:
with regard to this graphic:
here's the caption that went with it in the article:
in addition to what hudson26 said about it, there is another reason why the actual route doesn't go that way... This plan is all well and good if usair 2046 is the only airplane that wants to do that. However that's certainly not the case. For the sake of argument, let's say that 20 flights an hour want to do it, too. Still ok for the most part. Unfortunately, the shortest path from boston back to dc is along the very same route. So add another 20 flights per hour going the other way and your satellite has got some sorting out to do. I just don't think that implementing a system that causes nose-to-nose situations is such a good idea. And they seem to be advocating doing this on a national scale.
The article (like most others on the subject) asserts that the new technology will enable us to put more airplanes in the air, closer together, and thereby improve efficiency and reduce delays. Within the past few years, rvsm was introduced. This procedure reduced the vertical separation above fl290 from 2000' to 1000' effectively doubling the airspace capacity up there. Granted not everyone goes above 290 and of those who do, not all are rvsm capable. But you would think that this relatively major increase in capacity would have lent a little toward reducing delays. Delays in the past few years have included the worst ever in history.
Increasing the airborne capacity just doesn't seem to me to be the answer to the delay problem... I think is has more to do with the airports. That's where the delay problem really is.
In light of raydon's comments about the pegs... I couldn't help but appreciate this reader comment from the article:
However, nextgen doesn't appear to me to be the "cure-all" that they are touting it to be. There are several places where they will have to make modifications. Probably the most important one centers around this statement from the article:
Quote:
...the landing capacity for a single runway could increase by 25 percent, handling a plane every 45 seconds.
Wake turbulence is a very real and potentially lethal "phenomenon" and satellites are not going to make it disappear. I hope they continue to factor it into their grand scheme without the necessity of slamming any airplanes into the ground to remind themselves that it's still there.
Wake turbulence is a very real and potentially lethal "phenomenon" and satellites are not going to make it disappear. I hope they continue to factor it into their grand scheme without the necessity of slamming any airplanes into the ground to remind themselves that it's still there.
here's the caption that went with it in the article:
Quote:
this 68-minute us airways flight 2046 (yellow) uses about 275 gal. Of fuel to fly 585 miles from washington, d.c., to boston, mass. The same flight under nextgen (blue) would save 23 minutes, 91 gal. And 185 miles.
The article (like most others on the subject) asserts that the new technology will enable us to put more airplanes in the air, closer together, and thereby improve efficiency and reduce delays. Within the past few years, rvsm was introduced. This procedure reduced the vertical separation above fl290 from 2000' to 1000' effectively doubling the airspace capacity up there. Granted not everyone goes above 290 and of those who do, not all are rvsm capable. But you would think that this relatively major increase in capacity would have lent a little toward reducing delays. Delays in the past few years have included the worst ever in history.
Increasing the airborne capacity just doesn't seem to me to be the answer to the delay problem... I think is has more to do with the airports. That's where the delay problem really is.
In light of raydon's comments about the pegs... I couldn't help but appreciate this reader comment from the article:
Quote:
...you cannot jam 100 square pegs into 50 round holes faster by having these pegs delivered to you more quickly!
_______________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bat
hmm, i think some of you guys aren't thinking about the bigger picture. Nextgen isn't just about more direct routes. Aviation technology is increasing by leaps and bounds. Think about what new stuff like ads-b and rnp will do. Hell, rnp is allowing aircraft to land at airports that could never bring in 737+ size aircraft on conventional procedures. Also, in the airspace modeling/simulation arena, software is being developed that would reroute flights on direct routes when an operational advantage exists. Another aspect will be constant decent approaches. Nextgen isn't just about increasing capacity, it's also saving people/companies time and money. Nextgen is a long way off and it's gonna take baby steps to get there. All in good time gentlemen.
______________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by atctower
ok, what no one here is addressing is the issues facing the terminals... There can be improvements to current approaches, but for the most part, direct descent approaches are in place at most airports, and those that only utilize stepdown approaches do so for a reason (ie. Mountainous regions). The problem that can not be resolved by technology is, what do we do with all the planes who were sped up and reach the terminals in a larger bunch than before. The only thing that can resolve the delay issues is better staffing and utilization of current resources. I mean really, think about how smooth ord would run if they were to utilize 4 or 5 of their runways with lahso ops which is feasible given the proper personnel.
_______________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bat
part of the plan is to make sure they don't get there in a large bunch. See my post above about rerouting on a direct route if an operational advantage exists. I have seen the software being tested.
_______________________________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by raydon
that's also more or less congruent with what i said about not re-routing all air traffic down that pipeline.. If they can re-route 20 flights up and down simultaneously at one time between airports.. The estimated savings at the end of the day/week/month/quarter/year should reflect that it was a good choice.. Given they probably have some hardcore analysts taking care of the projections ahead of time to know in advance if it's going to be worth it..
As long as the savings are greater than the cost to run the system in the projected manner, for any amount of air traffic.. It's worth it.
Given: Ppg (jet-a) = 3.75 for reference
pilot salary = $100/hr for reference only
current route from boston, ma to washington, dc = 585 miles
jet-a consumed = 275 gal ($1031.25)
time = ~1:48 ($185 to pilot)
projected route from boston, ma to washington, dc = 400 miles
jet-a consumed = 184 gal ($690)
time = ~1:25 ($120 to pilot)
savings = jet-a = $341.25
pilot time = $65 (pilot still gets it, but not on this flight!)
total = $406.25/flight from boston, ma to washington, dc.
Let's say... In a 24 hour time period we get the projected 20 planes at a time in the new lanes throughout the entire span here.. Every 1.5 hours (rounding up from 1:25) a new plane enters the airspace as previous flight leaves..
24/1.5 = 16 flight periods
16 flight periods @ 20 flights each = 320 flights total
320 flights @ the lower rate = (406.25 savings)*320 flights throughout the day
$130,000 saved in a single 24 hour time period.
Keep in mind these are all estimates and the times/fuel usages are from that old article i originally posted. I threw in numbers for the flight #'s in a day and how many flights down the new lanes as well.
Take it with a grain of salt but i see potential there.
As long as the savings are greater than the cost to run the system in the projected manner, for any amount of air traffic.. It's worth it.
Given: Ppg (jet-a) = 3.75 for reference
pilot salary = $100/hr for reference only
current route from boston, ma to washington, dc = 585 miles
jet-a consumed = 275 gal ($1031.25)
time = ~1:48 ($185 to pilot)
projected route from boston, ma to washington, dc = 400 miles
jet-a consumed = 184 gal ($690)
time = ~1:25 ($120 to pilot)
savings = jet-a = $341.25
pilot time = $65 (pilot still gets it, but not on this flight!)
total = $406.25/flight from boston, ma to washington, dc.
Let's say... In a 24 hour time period we get the projected 20 planes at a time in the new lanes throughout the entire span here.. Every 1.5 hours (rounding up from 1:25) a new plane enters the airspace as previous flight leaves..
24/1.5 = 16 flight periods
16 flight periods @ 20 flights each = 320 flights total
320 flights @ the lower rate = (406.25 savings)*320 flights throughout the day
$130,000 saved in a single 24 hour time period.
Keep in mind these are all estimates and the times/fuel usages are from that old article i originally posted. I threw in numbers for the flight #'s in a day and how many flights down the new lanes as well.
Take it with a grain of salt but i see potential there.
Total Comments 2
Comments
-
Furthering the money aspect of the nextgen systems:
Lets take into account the passengers moving per day down the hypothesized corridor.
~300 people per full plane - lets say all the planes are jam packed full every time on these flights.
$300 (hypothetical) per ticket and 300 pax =
90k per flight down the corridor.
--------------------------------------------------
24hrs/1.75(old flight route time) = 13 flight periods
13 flight periods @ 20 flights each = 260 flights per 24 hour period
260*90k= $23,400,000
-vs-
320*90k= $28,800,000
an overall increase of $5,400,000 in a day
of course.. once again this is purely hypothetical. but.. the rigid hypothesized bottom line works out if you ask me.
$5,400,000 x 365 = $1,971,000,000 increase in yearly business
shareholders may rejoice
---------------------------------------------------Posted 08-25-2009 at 10:21 PM by Raydon 
Updated 08-25-2009 at 10:28 PM by Raydon -
and lets not forget - more above-table revenues made by enterprise and business = more taxes for the government.
And I'm not talking about just tax revenues from the airlines. The refineries, the fuel providers, the caterers..
Everyone who makes more money from shoving more people in these tin cans and flying them faster and more frequently from a to b generates taxable income.
It's an extravaganza! Bonanza! Everyone wins. NexGen is a logistical godsend for everyone involved. Win-win if you ask me.Posted 11-27-2010 at 10:43 PM by Raydon
