U.S. Air Traffic Control: The Moral Equivalent of Semaphores and Signal Fires

Elemenope | August 28, 2008, 11:47am | #

And Reason gets burned by the copyright monkeys!

Elemenope | August 28, 2008, 11:55am | #

And on the 3rd attempt, we get a cartoon that's legally appropriated, legible, and somewhat funny.

If only Friday Funnies could be this way!!!

Invisible Finger | August 28, 2008, 11:59am | #

But a cumbersome civil-service bureaucracy, funded in dribs and drabs by annual congressional appropriations, is more likely to impede that transition than to facilitate it.

So the Reason Foundation is actually calling for massive increases in expenditures. aka MORE government.

Beam me up, Scotty. Reason has become a socialist think tank.

Elemenope | August 28, 2008, 12:00pm | #

LMNOP: I took down the first cartoon because I hadn't initially seen the permission required notice. It's polite to ask permission in such cases, but that would take time and there are other cartoons to illustrate the problem after all.

I'm just joshin' ya. Misdirected anger from the convention, I'm sure.

Ron Bailey | August 28, 2008, 12:04pm | #

IF: Had you looked at some of the Reason Foundation research to which I so helpfully linked you would have found that Poole favors essentially privatizing ATC.

Episiarch | August 28, 2008, 12:06pm | #

What, Ron, you couldn't find an Airplane screenshot? I guess I picked the wrong day to stop taking amphetamines.

Ron Bailey | August 28, 2008, 12:12pm | #

Episiarch: Thought that a screenshot from Airplane would be just a tad too obvious.

Isn't every day the wrong day to stop taking amphetamines? ;-)

Episiarch | August 28, 2008, 12:19pm | #

Isn't every day the wrong day to stop taking amphetamines? ;-)

Ron, you are a man of insight.

joe | August 28, 2008, 12:23pm | #

robc,

Ma! Ma! In here! Wave to gradma, kids!

Rhywun | August 28, 2008, 12:29pm | #

It's just another systematic defect of a government run system.

I'm wondering if the "major organizational and funding reform, as has already been done in Australia, Canada, and most of Europe" to which Mr. Poole alluded has made the presumably government-run air traffic any better in those areas?

Alan | August 28, 2008, 1:16pm | #

My understanding is that the real challenge is actually implementing the upgrade. You have to pretty much replace the whole system at once, and you're not allowed any downtime - ever.
This will take some special doin', as it's already been tried a couple of times, then abandoned after spending millions of dollars.

libertymike | August 28, 2008, 1:20pm | #

Let's face it. Privatization ensures that some rent seeker is going to get rich. Not by free and unfettered competition-but by government fiat. Not very good. Not very efficient.

New World Dan | August 28, 2008, 1:32pm | #

libertymike:

I believe navigable waters doctrine extends to the air. Certainly most flights qualify as interstate commerce. If there is a need to regulate air traffic, I don't see how that could really end up anywhere but in federal hands.

Brandybuck | August 28, 2008, 1:36pm | #

It is hugely labor-intensive, when software could accomplish many routine tasks in keeping planes safely separated.

Except as this very story illustrates, sometimes software as glitches. As a professional software engineer I can assure you that there is no such thing as perfect software*. The core problem with the current ATC system is that it can't handle failure mode. Failure is going to happen and a new system will have to be able to cope with a complete breakdown of the software.

*) There does exist bug-free software, but it deals with highly deterministic domains, and air traffic control ain't one of them.

some fed | August 28, 2008, 1:50pm | #

The problem with most real-life privatization schemes is that they aren't privatization schemes; they're management contracts or--at best--long-term leases. Often there're strings attached: you can't split it, you can't liquidate its assets, you can't change your prices, you have to submit your management to government directives, you can't fire anyone or change their compensation, etc. These factors discourage bids, so sometimes governments will sweeten the deal by awarding the buyer a legal monopoly over that sector of the economy.

Criticism of privatization schemes is better directed not at the concept of privatization, but at the myriad ways in which such schemes deviate from the definition of privatization.

Alan | August 28, 2008, 2:06pm | #

To Don Brown:

Care to share where you would like the 3 new runways located?

libertymike | August 28, 2008, 2:20pm | #

New World Dan-

Thecommerce clasue does not say that congress has the right to regulate air travel. That is undeniable. Second, I do not and have never bought expansionist arguments urging that if congress can regulate interstate commerce over land and water, why shouldn't it apply to airspace. Choplogic. That is what it is. To argue otherwise means that the federal gvt. is not a gvt. of limited powers but is a gvt. that has unlimited implied powers.

libertymike | August 28, 2008, 2:41pm | #

Some Fed-

1/2 and 1/2.

In and of itself, privatization is bad if it means the continuation of some compelled activity or scheme. Just because the administration or management of the compelled activity or scheme is in "private" hands does not mean that it is good.

Of course, you are right that the myriad ways of implementing privatization plans are often fraught with all sorts of mischief.

Kolohe | August 28, 2008, 2:44pm | #

"As an advisor to the Bush campaign on transportation policy, Poole was the primary architect of Bush's aviation policy."
- Government Executive

“Labor leaders trace Bush's embrace of air traffic control privatization to the Reason Foundation, a Los Angeles think tank that endorses limited government and whose transportation specialist, Robert Poole Jr., was a Bush campaign adviser and present during the White House transition.” - San Francisco Chronicle

No offense to Mr. (Dr?) Poole and all, but I don't trust the current administration *at all* in this. Give me a real deregulator like Jimmy Carter any day over what currently passes for 'privatization.'

Rhywun | August 28, 2008, 2:54pm | #

Care to share where you would like the 3 new runways located?

Howard Beach is an armpit - they can have that.

Otherwise the real answer is here.

Don Brown | August 28, 2008, 3:03pm | #

"Care to share where you would like the 3 new runways located?"

The same place ATL will put the 6th, 7th, 8th or 15th.

That's the point. There are limits. You aren't going to build any new runways at LaGuardia. A new ATC won't increase the capacity. We need to update the ATC system but we always need to update it. And we always have. Running airplanes closer together doesn't do you much good if they don't have a place to land.

Don Brown

Alan | August 28, 2008, 3:08pm | #

LIT: Yes, Atlanta has 5. I was saying that JFK, while it only has 2, is completely surrounded by water, highways, and houses. It would be the mother of all Eminent Domain projects to expand the airport in the way suggested by Don Brown.


P. Brooks: Easy - It was relocated from Kai Tak to Chek Lap Kok - which was conveniently barren at the time.

Don Brown | August 28, 2008, 3:16pm | #

"Uhm, my cousin with over twenty years at Chicago ARTCC says shut up"

Billy,

Tell your cousin that the guy with 25 years at Atlanta ARTCC says, "Retire". :)

Don Brown
http://gettheflick.blogspot.com/

Alan | August 28, 2008, 3:19pm | #

Billy - you are correct. I only meant that only 2 are in use at any time. All 5 of ATL's runways are parallel, which appears to be a cleverer design, but a bit late for JFK. I guess it was built before pilots learned to how to land in cross-wind.

Kolohe | August 28, 2008, 3:26pm | #

I guess it was built before pilots learned to how to land in cross-wind.

ATL was built when that area was in the middle of nowhere (it's still 17 mi from downtown) while Idlewild is in Queens 10 miles from the center of what has been the top ten most densely populated places on the planet for a century.

Are you all kidding | August 28, 2008, 3:36pm | #

We have examples of goverment privitization now. The FSS (Flight Service System) system has been privitaized for years now and has been a total disaster. This is the system that pilots are supposed to use to obtain weather. Not one experienced pilot I have talked with likes the system. But no one seems to care because the only people dying are a few GA (small) types.
Usally when some one whats to privitize a goverment function, its because there is a belief that private sector can do a better job, or that companys can be trusted to govern themselves. But what happens when connected political types stack the deck against the public to make it seems is if government can't do the job. Like forcing out older and qualified workers to be replaced by younger trainees unfamilar with the job. How about removing qualified Inspectors replacing them with "auditors" that only inspect by telephone or from thier desks. (Southwest Airlines, American Airlines ect...) So when the enevitable happens, the death of passengers on an airliner, the powers that be can scream, "see government can't do the job!!! " And the public not knowing the back story eats up the spoon fed argument and demands that new companys begin doing the work that the goverment can't obviously do any more. Just by happenstance there are companies in place ready and able to take over where the FAA and government "failed". Oddly enough staffed by former goverment managers with the training and know how to do the job.

Unfortunalty the public right now only cares about cheap fares and arriving somewhat on time. Its the goverment workers that are being set up to fail that know whats happening.

jasa | August 28, 2008, 3:55pm | #

Mr Brown, if you are the former columnist from Avweb, I always enjoyed your column. Cool that you lurk around here.

I'm guessing the title of this blog wasn't written by a pilot. I won't dignify it by explaining why it's stupid.

"Any pilots in this crowd? "

Yup, I'm a pilot. (Say that like the drunk dude in Independence Day.)

Mid-airs? Well, they tend to happen where it gets crowded, like around an airport. Someone mis-tunes the traffic freq., or mis-hears a tower command, coupled with a lack of vigilance using the old eyeballs, and boom, shit happens. It's very, very rare, however. Even more so when in positive control airspace (class C or class B). Your typical pilot, when not on a jihad, just don't like dying.

Solutions to the current capacity problem? This is a pretty complicated subject. ADS-B could be part of the solution. This technology uses GPS to encode a given aircrafts position in a digital transmission to ATC. All aircraft within 100 miles equipped with ADS-B will then receive this transmission and know where the other traffic is. Everyone gets to see the real time big picture, not just the radar jockeys on the ground. In theory, this will allow more precise spacing and faster traffic flow.

What ADS-B won't solve:
Slots at the terminal. There are only so many berths available at a given time.

Airlines preference for the current hub and spoke system. It's cheaper for them, but less efficient for passengers. Pick one, fast or cheap.

Additionally, most airports have superb radar coverage and controllers. Having everyone see the big picture is not likely to double the landing rate.

jasa | August 28, 2008, 4:12pm | #

"What are you talking about? I've used FSS and loved it."

FSS privatization has been neither horrible nor wonderful. The first year was pretty rocky.
But remember, the contract to Lockheed Martin was for far less than Uncle Sam was spending on it. Lower funds plus lack of local area expertise produces the predictable result. Want good weather info? Sign up for XM satellite weather, get the proper gear on the panel, and get real time (sort of) data.

Invisible Finger | August 28, 2008, 5:24pm | #

you would have found that Poole favors essentially privatizing ATC.

Real privatization means competing systems are A-OK. Poole is not calling for that, so there's nothing "essentially" privatized about his proposal at all. It's merely a privatization veneer over a government-run-in-all-but-name bureaucracy.

Poole's suggestion praises Norm Mineta - a man with such high regard for the co-op paradigm that he dismantled the security co-op system in favor of the TSA.

Invisible Finger | August 28, 2008, 5:41pm | #

My understanding is that the real challenge is actually implementing the upgrade. You have to pretty much replace the whole system at once, and you're not allowed any downtime - ever.

That's why a better idea is to let private plane operators and hobbyists work on the problem. You're going to have to run parallel systems, and I can certainly see the willingness in those people for inexpensive experimentation. If a few hobbyists crash their planes and die, it's sad news but it's not a national crisis and the experiments don't end. One foulup with a passenger plane and progress grinds to a halt. With Poole's bureaucracy-led idea you'll also wind up with a system requiring reasonable expense rather than a system requiring massive capital expenditure designed to keep startup airlines from entering the business.

Invisible Finger | August 28, 2008, 5:53pm | #

With Poole's bureaucracy-led idea ...

Should've read "without..."

Don Brown | August 28, 2008, 8:05pm | #

"Mr Brown, if you are the former columnist from Avweb, I always enjoyed your column. Cool that you lurk around here."

Jasa,

I are and lurkin' is what retired guys do. I just go wherever Google sends me.

Thanks for the kind words.

BTW, "Mr. Brown" is still alive and well. I'm just Don.

Don't feel bad. I called Robert Poole "Mr. Reason". We all make mistakes.

I agree that ADS-B is cool. But it won't increase the capacity of a runway. Slight improvements are possible. Runways will always be the big limiting factor.

Don Brown
http://gettheflick.blogspot.com/