Re: [Mratc-developers] [my status]

[Michael R. <ht...@us...>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aquila Deus" <aqu...@ya...>

> > If obstacles are in the way, we guide the flights around
them,
> > but otherwise let the flights choose their own path.  We are
in
> > charge of short-term (within the next minute or so)
navigation;
> > the flights are in charge of long-term navigation.
>
> But if so, the flights may not need the ATC. They should be
able to detect
> short-term problems, just like fighters.

Maybe.  That is an excellent way to distribute processing.
However, could a flight ever be between a rock and a hard place
and by itself find no safe route through, while an ATC, seeing
the big picture and following a ruleset, could find a safe route
(by moving other planes out of the way, for example)?

The industry is experimenting with free flight ATC, where each
flight is in charge of its own collision avoidance.  They are
having a hard time implementing something that reliably does the
job.

Think of this.  What if flight A and flight B were approching
point X, both flights due to arrive at point X at the same time?
Which flight should cede right of way to the other?  I suppose a
ruleset could be implemented like the flight on the right yields
to the flight on the left.  But with this ruleset comes a
problem.  If the flight on the right is supposed to make a
course adjustment, but cannot, because it is up against
restricted airspace, the flight on the left should make a course
adjustment.  But how can the flight on the left know the flight
on the right cannot make an adjustment?  Centralized ATC could
solve this problem.

What if five flights were approaching from five different
directions and due to arrive at point X at the same time?  How
do they get out of that jam?  Separating different headings into
different altitudes might help with this problem.

Flights cannot be flying around in total randomness.  There
needs to be some kind of order established for them.  For
example, currently, they have highways in the sky that flights
follow.  I propose different headings should fly at different
altitudes.  Can you imagine the darting back and forth a flight
would have to do to avoid flights approaching from every
direction?  Darting back and forth is not something commercial
airliners were designed to do.  Passengers probably would not
care too much for it, either.

If different headings are separated into different altitudes,
what happens when a flight wants to change its heading/altitude?
Will its radar be able to tell if the course is clear at the new
altitude and heading?

> I have never heard two close fighters hit each other.

There are not usually thousands of fighters in the sky at the
same time.  They usually go on sorties, or predefined flights,
or missions.  As the sorties are laid out, I'm sure they take
into consideration conflct or integration with other sorties.

Pilots cannot reliably perform collision avoidance with their
eyes because the rate of closure at mach 0.85 is too high.
Also, bad weather or darkness makes this difficult.

Currently, air traffic controllers are performing collision
avoidance with their eyes.  They look at their radar screen and
tell flights to adjust their course if they are headed for a
collision.  A human being has a certain limit to the number of
flights he or she can safely process at one time.  Computers can
process information faster and more accurately than humans.

--Mike