ATC User Fees

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

To truly privatize it would require free market competition among providers
of ATC services. That simply is not possible.

If you look at ATC services as being people who talk to you on the
radio and tell you where to go, then you're probably right. It's hard
to see how there could be competing services with that system.
However, if you look at ATC services as primarily being separation and
sequencing into the busiest airports, then I think we can find
different mechanisms for those that might allow for competition.

Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots can
"see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
service.

Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
it.

I think a better answer would be to extend the datalink system so that
it could transmit approach corridor information to inbound aircraft
who then sequence themselves through different approach gates sorted
by speed.

I'm not sure we're ready to replace tower controllers with something
like this though Canada's idea of Mandatory Frequency airports is one
option that could reduce the number of airports that need towers.

-Dave

"David Bridgham" wrote in message
...

If you look at ATC services as being people who talk to you on the
radio and tell you where to go, then you're probably right. It's hard
to see how there could be competing services with that system.
However, if you look at ATC services as primarily being separation and
sequencing into the busiest airports, then I think we can find
different mechanisms for those that might allow for competition.

Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots can
"see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
service.


I don't see any free market competition among providers of ATC services
there. It appears to me you've eliminated the provision of ATC services!
Who then is responsible for separation?



Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
it.


But then there'd be no free market competition among providers of ATC
services.

"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:

Start with a decent spec for air to air datalink and once pilots
can "see" other traffic, they can supply their own separation.
Competition is now between the vendors of radios that provide this
service.

I don't see any free market competition among providers of ATC services
there. It appears to me you've eliminated the provision of ATC services!
Who then is responsible for separation?

The pilots of course. They've always had the responsibility for the
aircraft, technology just now allows us to give them the information
needed to also have the ability to make their own decisions instead of
handing that job over to someone on the ground.

Sequencing is a little harder but not much. The easy way out is to
say that it's still done by people on the ground talking on radios and
the competition is simply that which comes from bidding on the
contract to execute this service for the various airports that need
it.

But then there'd be no free market competition among providers of ATC
services.

Right, the only competition is in the bidding process for the various
contracts to provide approach services at those airports that think
they need them. That's why I went on to describe what I think is a
better system; one that does away with the need and again puts
responsibility with the pilots, where it belongs.

The point I'd hoped to make was not my particular ideas of how to make
a better system for air traffic (though I'm happy to talk about that
too). My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.

-Dave

"David Bridgham" wrote in message
...

The pilots of course. They've always had the responsibility for the
aircraft, technology just now allows us to give them the information
needed to also have the ability to make their own decisions instead of
handing that job over to someone on the ground.


If everybody's responsible then nobody's responsible.



Right, the only competition is in the bidding process for the various
contracts to provide approach services at those airports that think
they need them. That's why I went on to describe what I think is a
better system; one that does away with the need and again puts
responsibility with the pilots, where it belongs.


Many pilots just aren't up to that level of responsibility.

David Bridgham wrote:


The point I'd hoped to make was not my particular ideas of how to make
a better system for air traffic (though I'm happy to talk about that
too). My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.

There is no way that 50 airplanes, each with a computer trying to figure
out a sequence, will ever be as efficient as one controller. Cannot be
done. Your system would immediately fall apart when you start
introducing everyday variables into the mix. Such as vehicles/aircraft
needing to cross or access the runway, aircraft missing their turnoff,
aircraft aborting takeoff, debris falling off aircraft and needing to be
cleaned up, mowing, snow removal, the list is endless.

Newps wrote:

David Bridgham wrote:
The point I'd hoped to make was not my particular ideas of how to make
a better system for air traffic (though I'm happy to talk about that
too). My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.


There is no way that 50 airplanes, each with a computer trying to figure
out a sequence, will ever be as efficient as one controller. Cannot be
done. Your system would immediately fall apart when you start
introducing everyday variables into the mix. Such as vehicles/aircraft
needing to cross or access the runway, aircraft missing their turnoff,
aircraft aborting takeoff, debris falling off aircraft and needing to be
cleaned up, mowing, snow removal, the list is endless.

Yes, it might be almost as complex as this post managing to find its way
through a network of thousands of computers without any central control.

I'm sure the system will immediately fall apart and you'll never see
this response.

Peter wrote:
Newps wrote:

David Bridgham wrote:

The point I'd hoped to make was not my particular ideas of how to make
a better system for air traffic (though I'm happy to talk about that
too). My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.



There is no way that 50 airplanes, each with a computer trying to
figure out a sequence, will ever be as efficient as one controller.
Cannot be done. Your system would immediately fall apart when you
start introducing everyday variables into the mix. Such as
vehicles/aircraft needing to cross or access the runway, aircraft
missing their turnoff, aircraft aborting takeoff, debris falling off
aircraft and needing to be cleaned up, mowing, snow removal, the list
is endless.


Yes, it might be almost as complex as this post managing to find its way
through a network of thousands of computers without any central control.

I'm sure the system will immediately fall apart and you'll never see
this response.


Apples and oranges. If your post made it immediately to the server or
was delayed by 5 minutes it would be irrelavant. Air traffic doesn't
work that way. Take a simple example. There is an aircraft on fianl,
put there by the computer. There is an aircraft cleared for takeoff by
the computer. There is an aircraft told to taxi into position and hold
by the computer. The aircraft on takeoff roll has to abort and as you
know there could be a million reasons for that. Perhaps it's a non
mechanical reason, and therefore not known by the computer, a deer ran
on to the runway. How does the aircraft on final know what to do? It
all has to be inputted into a computer immediately. Where will he fly?
How will the aircraft, who is in position and hold, know what to do.
The computer needs to be told that it can't go. If everything works
perfectly every second of every day it probably still wouldn't work.
Add in one typical variable and the house of cards collapses.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:02:19 -0600, Newps wrote
in ::

The aircraft on takeoff roll has to abort and as you
know there could be a million reasons for that. Perhaps it's a non
mechanical reason, and therefore not known by the computer, a deer ran
on to the runway. How does the aircraft on final know what to do? It
all has to be inputted into a computer immediately.

If the computer is aware of the position of the aircraft it is
controlling through GPS interrogation, RADAR/transponder, ADDS-B, or
...., it would be programmed to issue the appropriate instructions to
the aircraft. Beyond departure and destination information, little
else need be "inputted" into the computer.

Newps wrote:
Peter wrote:

Newps wrote:

David Bridgham wrote:

My point is that the monopoly situation that we currently have
with ATC is a result of the particular design that came to be for good
reasons given the technology at hand. However, technology has changed
so much since the 40's (even though our planes haven't) that it seems
worth reconsidering the fundamentals, not just trying to push ahead
with the same old thing. The need for a monopoloy is not a given.

There is no way that 50 airplanes, each with a computer trying to
figure out a sequence, will ever be as efficient as one controller.
Cannot be done. Your system would immediately fall apart when you
start introducing everyday variables into the mix.

Yes, it might be almost as complex as this post managing to find its
way through a network of thousands of computers without any central
control.

I'm sure the system will immediately fall apart and you'll never see
this response.


Apples and oranges.

Apparently it managed to get through afterall.

If your post made it immediately to the server or
was delayed by 5 minutes it would be irrelavant. Air traffic doesn't
work that way. Take a simple example. There is an aircraft on fianl,
put there by the computer. There is an aircraft cleared for takeoff by
the computer. There is an aircraft told to taxi into position and hold
by the computer. The aircraft on takeoff roll has to abort and as you
know there could be a million reasons for that. Perhaps it's a non
mechanical reason, and therefore not known by the computer, a deer ran
on to the runway. How does the aircraft on final know what to do? It
all has to be inputted into a computer immediately. Where will he fly?

Same thing that happens now. If the runway isn't clear when he starts to
land then he does a go around and negotiates a new reservation slot in
the queue. If he's far enough back when the delay occurs then he slows
or does a 360. Certainly the algorithms would be different for ATC than
computer networks ('retransmit after collision' can work for packets but
isn't so good for aircraft), but I don't see it as inherently less soluable.

I think the idea is that the pilot, with sufficient information in a
sufficiently good display and interface, would be able to handle
separation (under IMC) as well as he could under VMC. If this is true
(and I'm not convinced that it is yet), then much of the need for the
IFR system would be eliminated.

I am aware that under high traffic conditions this breaks down (which is
presumably why we have alphabet airspace to begin with)

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.