You could have just use a different name. Make one up. Ohh. Never mind.

Europe can afford to go to 8.33 kHz spacing because there's little to very little private aviation and the airlines are subsidized by the government. Done deal. Only the taxpayers are loosers. The change to narrowband channels below 12.5 kHz requires digital radios, which means a lot of private users like GA and businessess would have to invest a significant amount of their own money and we have active lobbies that do a fair job of preventing government from grounding private aviation (both government and airlines hate private aviation). As a retired communications engineer with years in the radio telecommunications, I'm at the head of the line in favor of digital radios and spectrum efficiency but I'm not sure it passes an honest cost/benefit analysis. I predict that in the next decade or so digital communications between cockpit and ATC via something like ADS-B will significantly reduce radio traffic, much as laptops in the car and merging of voice and data in the 800 MHz band has significantly reduced radio traffic for law enforcement. The engineer inside me thinks that this is what we should be doing instead of trying to get more channels within a fixed bandwidth.

European airlines are not subsidised by government. Those days are long gone. Also there is a significant GA and business sector. So the idea it all falls on the taxpayer is a total misunderstanding.

 

The fact is Europe is denser airspace and faced the problem sooner. So 8.33 is established and works. What you are talking about, ATC via datalink, is not. Anyway that's still new digital technology to implement in the flightdeck. The idea that airlines (using datalink) would share the same airspace as GA (using voice) is alarming.

 

 

The fact is Europe is denser airspace

 

That's my top assumption. I don't have in-depth knowledge of airspace over there, but I do know that it's dense, which would make the 8.33 requirement picture fall together.

 

 

 

The idea that airlines (using datalink) would share the same airspace as GA (using voice) is alarming.

 

Not sure what you're getting at here...

 

GA and Commercial share airspace all the time. We have a significant bizav sector over here and they're always in and around commercial traffic. I don't find that in the least bit alarming. In fact, in many cases, it's the bizav leading the commercial traffic in equipage (so they're the ones with RNP and datalink ahead of the commercial guys in many cases).

Not sure what you're getting at here...

 

GA and Commercial share airspace all the time. We have a significant bizav sector over here and they're always in and around commercial traffic. I don't find that in the least bit alarming. In fact, in many cases, it's the bizav leading the commercial traffic in equipage (so they're the ones with RNP and datalink ahead of the commercial guys in many cases).

Sharing airspace is not the problem. It's about everybody hearing everybody else. If GA and airlines are on different systems that can't happen. Also airliners will only get their own ATC instructions though they will be able to see other traffic displayed. Less situational awareness. Rather like if ATC in France used English to control airliners but French for GA.

 

8.33 has been phased in in Europe and is still not mandatory for GA and lower airspace use. That happens in 2018 IIRC. It doesn't have to happen overnight. Lower airspace could be kept on 25KHz to exempt GA. But seriously, if you can afford to own a GA plane you can afford to buy a new radio receiver for it.

 

 

Sharing airspace is not the problem. It's about everybody hearing everybody else. If GA and airlines are on different systems that can't happen. Also airliners will only get their own ATC instructions though they will be able to see other traffic displayed. Less situational awareness. Rather like if ATC in France used English to control airliners but French for GA.

 

Thanks for explaining. I agree with the point that there's a decrease in SA. I agree partially with the concern in general. This is somewhat of the issue that's been raised over here, but part of the intent is to cut back the frequency congestion. It's been noted at more than one meeting (that I attended back when I supported some of the NextGen implementation stuff) that there's decrease in SA, which isn't exactly a good thing (though it might not be a wholly bad thing either). I'm not sure where the balance is best struck, however. I know MIA Center tried it for a while (that or JAX) and I think most centers use it for simple stuff (pilot requests, directs, etc). Descents and vectors are still via voice. Still, it's not in high amounts of use either way (except Oceanic, which also still mixes it with voice and SATCOM).

 

If you want to see a cluster of information avenues working in tandem, check out the NATs.

Thanks for explaining. I agree with the point that there's a decrease in SA. I agree partially with the concern in general. This is somewhat of the issue that's been raised over here, but part of the intent is to cut back the frequency congestion. It's been noted at more than one meeting (that I attended back when I supported some of the NextGen implementation stuff) that there's decrease in SA, which isn't exactly a good thing (though it might not be a wholly bad thing either). I'm not sure where the balance is best struck, however. I know MIA Center tried it for a while (that or JAX) and I think most centers use it for simple stuff (pilot requests, directs, etc). Descents and vectors are still via voice. Still, it's not in high amounts of use either way (except Oceanic, which also still mixes it with voice and SATCOM).

 

If you want to see a cluster of information avenues working in tandem, check out the NATs.

One place where ADS-B is being used to control traffic flow is Louisville where UPS uses it to get all their traffic in and out with the required 3 minute separation.

One place where ADS-B is being used to control traffic flow is Louisville where UPS uses it to get all their traffic in and out with the required 3 minute separation.

 

Do you have a link to that? SDF is a radar facility, so they would be using 3nm minimum separation in the air, and the reduced mins (time-wise) for launching departures has more to do with the RECAT that came out (MEM was a big participant for that too, with the obvious backer there being FDX).

 

UPS did somewhat pioneer the ADS-B systems in the NAS in general because they were the first big adopter of the technology. As such, the FAA used SDF as a test site for it. I wouldn't be surprised if referring to some info out there that I just haven't seen. My knowledge outside of the immediate FAA area (Potomac Approach and Wash Center, basically) is usually on the FAA-wide level. As of yet, there is no FAA-official reduced separation through the use of ADS-B, though (at least not that I've seen).

Do you have a link to that? SDF is a radar facility, so they would be using 3nm minimum separation in the air, and the reduced mins (time-wise) for launching departures has more to do with the RECAT that came out (MEM was a big participant for that too, with the obvious backer there being FDX).

 

UPS did somewhat pioneer the ADS-B systems in the NAS in general because they were the first big adopter of the technology. As such, the FAA used SDF as a test site for it. I wouldn't be surprised if referring to some info out there that I just haven't seen. My knowledge outside of the immediate FAA area (Potomac Approach and Wash Center, basically) is usually on the FAA-wide level. As of yet, there is no FAA-official reduced separation through the use of ADS-B, though (at least not that I've seen).

This article might help with some background:

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2010-04-30/ups-inching-closer-fleetwide-ads-b-use

 

I first heard about it around 2001/2 when UPS asked the company I was working for to quote to update their simulators with ADS-B equipment. They explained how it was going to be used, it was extremely interesting. I hadn't thought about the problems of scheduling all those aircraft to land in such a short time. An intriguing project I would have managed if we had won the order, but sadly our proposal didn't succeed. Dan's post in this thread reminded me of it.

 

Another area where datalink is used for ATC is in NAT Oceanic clearances and position reports.

 

 

Imagine if each of our states had its own sub-agency, and airspace. New England would definitely need 8.33 spacing for frequencies. As it stands, though, the FAA and FCC can coordinate across the borders to make it all easier for us.

 

While stationed in Europe in the USAF, I became involved in frequency coordination on occasion such as for NATO excercises. My memory isn't good but I think I recall that Europe had an international frequency coordinating organization. We did not have to coordinate with each separate country.  At the time, France was probably the exception and probably still is unless the EU organizations have taken over.

This article might help with some background:

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2010-04-30/ups-inching-closer-fleetwide-ads-b-use

 

I first heard about it around 2001/2 when UPS asked the company I was working for to quote to update their simulators with ADS-B equipment. They explained how it was going to be used, it was extremely interesting. I hadn't thought about the problems of scheduling all those aircraft to land in such a short time. An intriguing project I would have managed if we had won the order, but sadly our proposal didn't succeed. Dan's post in this thread reminded me of it.

 

Another area where datalink is used for ATC is in NAT Oceanic clearances and position reports.

Thanks!