Talk:Air traffic control
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) |
||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
The role of contract towers may be a bit overemphasized--introduced a bit too early and given a bit too much coverage. tbeddab 20:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. The opening paragraph of a general article on ATC is too early a place to cover in this amount of detail how ATC is organized in one particular country.BaseTurnComplete 02:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please add an explanation of air traffic control terminology, i.e. 'Heavy' and 'Flight Level' and other code words? I don't know enough about ATC to know what's useful and is not, and it would be handy to have now that several airlines are now allowing passengers to listen in on pilots' radio traffic. A subpage might be warranted -- "Things to listen for when listening to controllers talk to pilots."Karlkatzke
The 'alternative view' was submitted by shaunwall@yahoo.com former ATCO (1964-1988) Mon June 02 1345Z. Will attempt to merge. Pcb21 16:52 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Consider Revising
Simple physics dictate the amount of traffic that can land at an airport in a given amount of time.
-Very Vauge....sepration requirements are weather, type, aproach in use, airspace, locality dependant.
-"SIMPLE PHYICS" has little to do it, 747 could land in formation like a pair of Thunderbirds. The regulations and requirments have much more to do with trafic capacity.
IFR rules that require larger separation takeoff and landing needing to be separated by X seconds so sepration will be legal after the missed aproach.
-aircraft type (wake turbulance avoidance),
-weather (visiablity and wind),
-enviromental factors / noise abadance / local goverment issues
-approach layout.
- Not quite: departing aircraft are separated by time (minutes not seconds) based upon vortex category, landings are separated by vortex category on final approach (for IFR - VFR are given recommended spacings). If there are no vortex separation issues between departures, en-route separation becomes the controlling factor and either time or radar separation is used to separate departures (depending on flight rules and airspace class). If that is not a factor, the general rule that only one aircraft can use the runway at any one time becomes the limiting factrp (although there are some exceptions to this rule). Except in some special cases landing aircraft are not separated from departures (missed approaches are not separated from departures in a systematic manner - they are dealt with tactically when they happen)BaseTurnComplete 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pruning and Branching out
This article is getting very long and text-heavy, with seemingly endless blocks of text. Besides pruning and condensing, I think it could be vastly improved if we (a) add some pictures, and maybe more subheadings to help the layout; (b) branch it out into sub-articles. Specifically, areas like TRACON and possibly even EnRoute Control could easily be summarized in a far shorter space, and yet have the details preserved in a sub article using the Main Article: TRACON under headings format. I'm pretty busy these days, but that's where I'm focusing my efforts. -Lommer | talk 03:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Inaccuracies
There are several incorrect statements in this article. I've only read the first few paragraphs so far, but the following items caught my eye. Note that I'm only familiar with U.S. procedures, so it's possible these statements are true in other countries. But if that's the case the statements should still be cleared up.
- "VFR aircraft ... do not have set routes and altitudes." True in spirit, but not completely true. FAR part 91 requires VFR aircraft in level cruising flight above 3000 AGL to fly specified altitudes (specifically, odd thousands plus 500 when on headings between 0 and 179 degrees and even thousands plus 500 when on headings between 180 and 359). Despite the belief of some low-time VFR pilots, this is a mandatory regulation, not an FAA suggestion.
- Many countries have similar rules, however it's not always mandatory: often it's only advice BaseTurnComplete 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- "VFR aircraft are required to have an [sic] transponder." Absolutely false. A transponder is not required for VFR flight. It is only required to operate in (or sometimes around) controlled airspace. Moreover this requirement can be waived with prior permission from ATC (for example, to ferry a non-transponder-equipped aircraft through controlled airspace).
- (While providing traffic advisories to VFR aircraft) "Controllers do not provide any instructions concerning direction of flight." Sure they do. They're not required to issue these instructions, but they can, and pilots are expected to obey them (although any pilot can always choose to refuse any ATC instruction if required for safety under FAR part 91).
I have a feeling there are more such incomplete/inaccurate statements that I haven't gotten to yet. I think this article needs to be reviewed by an experienced pilot or controller.
Danorris 15:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, controllers aren't supposed to provide instructions to VFR aircraft receiving flight following. If a VFR pilot receives an instruction he/she doesn't feel like carrying out, the pilot can always say, "Cancel VFR advisories, squawking VFR" and can turn off the radio. (Of course, the pilot still has to keep in radio contact and follow instructions when in "talking-required" airspace like Class B, C, and D in the U.S.) —Cleared as filed. 04:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Actually, this is 100% inaccurate. I'm making this bold because it needs to be seen, as it is a potential safety issue for inexperienced pilots. I speak as both an experienced pilot and as a veteran controller when I tell you this: once you request ATC service, you are expected to comply with ATC instructions. You may advise that you are "unable" to perform an action, but you'd better be ready to receive a new instruction in lieu of your refused action. When you request VFR flight following, you are essentially submitting to VFR ATC control. Controllers will normally give only advisories to VFR aircraft, but will, as the situation merits, issue instructions to such aircraft as well. The fact that ATC is issuing a VFR aircraft an instruction should be cause for a veteran pilot to "sit up and take notice", as the controllers will usually do this only if there is a seperation or safety issue. Simply cancelling service becuase you don't want to comply with an ATC instruction is not only a great way to get your tail number reported, its inherently dangerous and foolish. Controllers do not provide instructions becuase they get a kick out of it; if an ATC facility issues you an instruction, it is in order to esure proper seperation and safety of flight operations. Try that "cancel advisories I'm going deaf" stuff, and you'll likely be hearing from your local FAA inspector PROMPTLY.--69.143.69.249 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- VFR advisories and Flight Following are very US-centred concepts and AFAIK don't have a parallel in ICAO, although certain countries do have similar concepts (in the UK a Radar Information Service is very similar to US Flight Following)BaseTurnComplete 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- "The FAA is responsible for all aspects of U.S. Air Traffic Control including hiring and training controllers, who are employees of the Federal Government." This is not correct. FAA regulates ATC in the US but some controllers are not employees of the FAA but rather of an private contractor hired by the airport or other local authority. This is part of the FAA Contract Tower program. http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/speeches/Blakey/2004/speeches_blakey_040524.htm KAllendoerfer This inaccuracy seems to have been fixed, though I can't tell by whom. Tx! KAllendoerfer 11:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CRM = TRM?
With regards to the reference to CRM, a very recent development here in the UK is 'TRM' (Team Resource Management) - basically CRM applied to ATC. Is this term being used anywhere else, or is CRM being used?
[edit] oceanic atc and data links
Could somebody include something about the recently introduced systems of atc over the pacific and atlantic oceans, whereby computer data links are used to pass information between atc and aircraft when the aircraft is beyond the range of radar (and to some extent voice communication). I'm not an expert on the matter but as a fairly new and interesting technology it would be nice if somebody could include a bit on it. In fact it might even warrant an article of its own...84.65.96.122 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
- You mean ADS and CPDLC. I'll see if I can squeeze something in. BaseTurnComplete 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terminal Control
Do we have to be a bit careful about definitions here? In the UK, "Terminal Control" means Approach Control and lower-level Area Control in areas with many closely located airports, as distinct from Tower control. The text here seems to imply that in the US it means Approach and Tower control (the UK would call these two Airport Control). What about other countries?BaseTurnComplete 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Suggest splitting article
Since there is a wide variance between FAA and ICAO regulations and practices, maybe it would be a good idea to seperate the two and have an ATC(FAA) page and an ATC(ICAO) page? --69.143.69.249 06:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree, partially. It would be better to have the main Air Traffic Control page using ICAO terminology and then have separate sections that could be expanded into separate pages that go into detail on how Air Traffic Control is done in each country. The US is not the only country to significantly deviate from ICAO, but ICAO is nominally the global standard BaseTurnComplete 17:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Air Traffic Management' redirects here
Air Traffic Management redirects here and indications are that the term is a more general term than 'air traffic control'. Consider the line item shown at ATM and the page Talk:Air Traffic Management. Could someone comment on this? Should 'air traffic management' have an article of its own or should it appear as a concept in 'air traffic control'? Thanks for the input. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's actually the other way round, Air Traffic Management is a broader term encompassing ATC, plus such things as Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM), Airspace design and other concepts. It would be worth detailing this in a separate article.86.132.198.177 12:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
