|
|
Internet Travel Monitor - Events & Legislation
June 20, 2007
Airlines and FAA Wrestle Over Satellite Guidance Systems for Planes
Everyone Says We Need It, but Nobody Wants to Pay the $40 Billion Cost
NEW YORK, NY – It is a great, big, wide-open sky over our heads — but when you're flying in a jetliner at 600 miles an hour, the sky is not so big.
That's part of the reason why, in the first four months of this year, the government said only 72 percent of all commercial flights arrived on time, the lowest number since the current system of reporting began in 1995.
The runways are full, the planes are jammed, air traffic controllers complain they're stressed out ... and the radar systems that keep things going are, in large part, 1960s technology. "It's like driving down the road with a paper bag over your head, and you're trying to stay out of the way of other cars," says Capt. Karen Lee, a 747 pilot who heads operations for UPS, the delivery service.
At its hub in Louisville, Ky., UPS is experimenting with the next generation in air traffic control: planes guided by the satellites of the Global Positioning System, instead of radar.
Radar, though it's advanced greatly over the years, is a technology that dates back to World War II. It scans the sky, looking for signals or reflections from planes in the air.
Typically, air traffic radar only updates a plane's position once every 12 seconds or so — and in 12 seconds, a jet can move two miles or make a turn. What's more, radar signals can be blocked by storms or mountains.
But with GPS signals, pilots can see in real time exactly where they are, and where other planes are, too. A readout screen in the cockpit tells the pilots what's around them.
"What we end up with is a very precise location for each aircraft in the system," said Basil Barimo of the Air Transport Association, which represents airlines.
If this so called Next-Generation Air Traffic Control works, planes won't have to be kept nearly as far apart as they are today. The danger of collision is all but eliminated if pilots know the position and direction of planes around them.
And planes will be able to fly more direct paths. Today, they often have to zigzag to stay in range of radar beacons.
"We will be able to save a lot of gas," says Lee, "and we're going to be able to eliminate a lot of emissions coming out the back end of our engines — it's wonderful."
What's not so wonderful is the question of how to pay for such technology. The estimate most commonly used is $40 billion, divided between the government and the aviation industry. Congress, worried about deficit spending, has not moved on the issue. And the airlines, many of which have been in and out of bankruptcy in recent years, say they cannot foot the bill, either.
But supporters of the upgrades say they could save billions more than they cost — fewer delays for passengers, fewer diversions for airlines. Alaska Airlines has tried a system that uses GPS for takeoffs and landings, and reported 980 flights that did not have to divert to other airports because of bad weather.
Meanwhile, the crowding only gets worse. Air traffic is expected to increase by a third in the next eight years. Backers, such as Lee of UPS, say the country may have little choice but to make the overhaul.
"If we weren't going to triple our traffic by 2025, there would be no need to do any of this," she said.
Copyright 2007 ABCNews Internet Ventures. All rights
reserved. From http://www.abcnews.go.com. By Ned Potter.
To view the Internet Travel Monitor Archive, click http://www.tripinfo.com/ITM/index.html.
|
|
