Re: [Mratc-developers] [my status]

[<aqu...@ya...>]

 --- Michael Ross <ht...@us...> wrote: 
> ----- 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.

Ummmm... If that's all, things would be very simple :)

But why don't they just replace useless human beings with computers? What's the
problem they face??

=====
me = d2004xx = d2003xx = d2002xx


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!  http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com