Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Faster Flights Are Coming With New Satellite Tracking Technology (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the coming-up-next dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: The company that provides the U.K.'s air-traffic control service is taking a 10 percent stake in Aireon, a U.S. firm that's building a satellite-based tracking system and will offer commercial services to controllers starting next year. Aireon plans to use a constellation of 66 Iridium Communications. Next satellites in low Earth orbit to track aircraft. Iridium has 50 in orbit already, 47 of which are operational. Each carries equipment to offer aircraft position data to ground controllers.

Iridium plans to launch five additional satellites on May 22 from California, completing its full network later this year. Aireon said 70 percent of the world's airspace lacks satellite tracking or airline surveillance coverage, including most oceans and parts of Africa and Latin America.

34 comments

  1. Typical Summary by TFlan91 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Typical /. summary doesn't even include the reason for the headline...

    Aircraft currently crossing that pond report their positions every few minutes as they fly set routes, keeping at least 40 miles apart. Aireon said its satellite-based system could allow for 15 miles of separation on oceanic routes, making room for more planes.

    1. Re:Typical Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't explain why it would be faster.

      Bandwidth != latency

    2. Re:Typical Summary by TFlan91 · · Score: 2

      Instead of flying 40 miles around another plane, they can keep it around 15 miles.

      It's the difference between the first lane on a race track and the 100th outside lane. That outside lane has quite a lot of ground to cover.

    3. Re:Typical Summary by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      A plane flying with 600 (nautic) miles does 40 miles in 4 minutes. Two planes approaching each other meet each other in 2 minutes ... cutting down flight safety protocols/procedures to 15 miles does not really sound plausible.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re: Typical Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea except there this thing called vertical separation.. eastbound flights are odd 1000â(TM)s and and westbound are at even 1000â(TM)s.

    5. Re:Typical Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flights in opposite directions never cruise at the same altitude. Different flight levels are used for east and west bound flights. So the reduction in horizontal separation would only have an effect on flights going in the same direction.

    6. Re:Typical Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can Khan! - 2D thinking. Planes have 3D capabilities, just like submarines.

      Even heading in the same direction, they can pass each other at different altitudes.

      What I worry about is what happens with 40K flights when solar storms hit and break all radio traffic?

    7. Re:Typical Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would assume to manage bandwidth limitations they restrict the reporting rate of the airplanes. Latency isn't the limiting factor for this networks update rate.

    8. Re:Typical Summary by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Unless the other plane is sitting perfectly still, there's no need to fly the whole 40 miles around it. And even if it was, a 40 mile separation can be achieved with a 5 degree deviation in heading over a 460-mile course, which is 3.5 miles of extra distance, extending the trip by 24 seconds.

      And keep in mind, the 40-mile separation only needs to be adhered to where there's no radar service, e.g. over empty oceans. Otherwise the separation can be reduced to 3 miles laterally, or 1,000 feet vertically.

      So no, it's not going to make much of a difference in flight time.

    9. Re:Typical Summary by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Aireon said its satellite-based system could allow for 15 miles of separation on oceanic routes, making room for more planes.

      While I'm sure that's technically true, long transoceanic routes are also pretty damn predictable. Once they've cleared the local air traffic their heading and cruise speed can be accurately projected hours ahead so it should only take very small early course adjustments to avoid flying "around" an incoming/crossing plane in the middle of the ocean. I suppose it could help if the skies were full that they could go more "bumper to bumper" but that would mainly just increase capacity. I just don't see the benefit to the typical ocean route, usually it's not that crowded. But I guess once the satellites are in place a signal is relatively cheap so even just a slightly straighter line can save more in fuel so that it makes economic sense, I doubt passengers would even notice though. My impression from international flights have been that they fly a very straight line already... well, the great circle but it's a matter of perspective.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Typical Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      satellites doesn't work over water unless there's a base station buoy

    11. Re:Typical Summary by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It was written by someone with no left hemisphere. They don't know it but they meant to say "shorter" flights...

    12. Re:Typical Summary by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      While I'm sure that's technically true, long transoceanic routes are also pretty damn predictable. Once they've cleared the local air traffic their heading and cruise speed can be accurately projected hours ahead so it should only take very small early course adjustments to avoid flying "around" an incoming/crossing plane in the middle of the ocean. I suppose it could help if the skies were full that they could go more "bumper to bumper" but that would mainly just increase capacity. I just don't see the benefit to the typical ocean route, usually it's not that crowded. But I guess once the satellites are in place a signal is relatively cheap so even just a slightly straighter line can save more in fuel so that it makes economic sense, I doubt passengers would even notice though. My impression from international flights have been that they fly a very straight line already... well, the great circle but it's a matter of perspective.

      It's really damn predictable, actually. So predictable, Canada controls the East to West Atlantic crossings, and the UK controls the West to East Atlantic crossings. Flights submit their flight plans ahead of time (they're quite predictable), and the governing ATC agency (e.g., Nav Canada) takes all the flight plans and arranges them by time. Depending on the winds, the agency creates 8-10 "routes" in the sky and gives them all a letter. The pilot merely has to fly that route, knowing that even without radar coverage, there is adequate separation between planes.

      It's a remarkably sane system. And the lanes are by no means congested (these are only at the flight levels, too).

      I don't believe anyone's actually complained they're congested - while there are only 10 routes, that applies to the route itself, there's plenty to altitude to go around as well.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Anyhow, this seems like a proprietary version of ADS-B that's being deployed worldwide. (Only the US is an oddity where the ADS-B is terrestrial - most other countries are using satellite-based ADS-B).

  2. Find the missing ones if it's so easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Malaysia Air plane is still missing in spite of what the latest panel of experts surmise.

    1. Re:Find the missing ones if it's so easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's very likely that all passengers are dead by this time anyway. Even if they were stranded on a deserted island, all that crap about coconut phones was science fiction - you can't really do that. Unless they find some way to get the plane operational again they are probably never going to be found. And if they flew through some kind of dimensional portal or time slipstream, well... they ain't makin' it back from that either.

  3. How? by I4ko · · Score: 1, Informative

    How does that make flights faster?
    The typical speed limitation is either for optimal fuel consumption or staying under the constructive limit where your wings no longer provide lift but you stall. You can increase either of them without making a new, re-engineered plane.

    And for the ares around airports, where you enter a hold or a landing pattern, air traffic control radars already know where you are.

    1. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are only a few NAT tracks; allowing direct flights will be significant.

    2. Re:How? by Dantoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because in OCA you will be able to apply much more flexible separation standards, allowing a mix of speeds (closing), earlier climbs, later descents, less speed imposition at crossing points and just push a whole lot more aircraft through choke points without having to slow the whole lot down to the speed of the LCD.

      There's a shit-ton of ways that replacing 15 minutes with no closing longitudinal time standards, with more flexible distance standards free up the speed limits that are imposed now.

    3. Re:How? by kiviQr · · Score: 2

      It will be faster for couple years till market catches up. Same with car traffic add two more lanes more cars will drive - no change for individual.

    4. Re:How? by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      The difference is, adding lanes in the air is free. Once minimum separation can't be reduced anymore, they can switch to bigger planes, and then to formation flying. There simply aren't enough people in the world to fill the whole North Atlantic. They'll run out of airports, pilots, and TSA screeners long before they run out of airspace.

    5. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The comparison is stupid. Road traffic is normally indivdual people driving individual routes for themselves. Airlines operate routes for people demanding to be transported, that's why they are called 'carriers'. The planes will not fly just to bring the pilot to the other side of the ocean.

      Thus adding capacity in the sky will not mean it will get more passengers to get on a plane. For that, they would need either more demand (which isn't related to the capacity in the sky at the moment) or lower operating costs to be able to lower ticket prices to stimulate more air travel. However as all other factors remain the same (fuel price, staff wages, maintenance costs, plane write off), there is no option for them to lower the prices. Thus the 'extra lanes' will not mean it will cause the market to 'catch up'. It just means it will get a tiny bit more efficient to route planes over the ocean.

    6. Re:How? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Because in OCA you will be able to apply much more flexible separation standards, allowing a mix of speeds (closing), earlier climbs, later descents, less speed imposition at crossing points and just push a whole lot more aircraft through choke points without having to slow the whole lot down to the speed of the LCD.

      There's a shit-ton of ways that replacing 15 minutes with no closing longitudinal time standards, with more flexible distance standards free up the speed limits that are imposed now.

      Its not going to make flights any faster, it will just allow more flights to occupy the same route (allegedly, I've got my doubts about this slashvertisement). An airliner still cruises at around 900 KP/H which means you wont get there any faster. If we want to improve flight times, less time fucking about at the gate is the way to do it. Unfortunately this means somehow managing to herd the selfish, arrogant, FYIGM cats that we call people better. I'm pretty sure that we could cut 15 mins of any flight if we simply stopped things like people with excess hand luggage, people who talk in aisles and people who put their bag in a bin that is nowhere near their seat.

      Also no waiting for people too busy stuffing their face or sleeping in the duty free area. The notion that "Its OK, the plane will wait for me" needs to be smacked down hard with "No, the plane will not wait for you, be at the gate before the door closing time or the plane leaves without you and your checked bags will be sent back at the airlines convenience within 2 weeks". Do that and we'll spend a lot less time waiting at the gate as the airport tannoy announces "Paging Mr and Mrs Wanktard, would Mr and Mrs Wanktard, please make yourselves known to airport personnel immediately".

      Beyond that, better apron/tarmac management. But this is a hard one because big airports like London Heathrow, New York-JFK or Amsterdam Schipol have problems simply because they're so large and busy.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. 66 shades of stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm quite disappointed that the only way this sort of thing gets done is by building a global picture then centralising command. That was likely the only viable approach back in the 1920s, but it shouldn't be now. Certainly not if you're going to let computers do the spacing anyhow. Same problem with the "vehicle to vehicle communications" crowd, by the by.

  5. Doesn't help when you're sitting on the tarmac ... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    ... for 30 minutes.

    It also doesn't help that these idiot airlines board the plane front-to-back instead of back-to-front, or even use BOTH the front and back doors for loading passengers.

  6. Re:Doesn't help when you're sitting on the tarmac by swb · · Score: 1

    Load the plane back to front and the 1st class passengers are pissed and/or ignore it ("because I'm Delta Platinum Elite").

    Load it front to back, and most people cheat anyway and the boarding gate people don't really enforce it.

    They really should have added a second boarding door and load through two doors, although I guess this doesn't solve nimrods who pick the wrong doors.

  7. Aireon Partners... by maxrate · · Score: 1

    https://aireon.com/partners/ ADS-B on a satelite: NAV Canada/Iridium/Italy/NATS UK/Irish Av Authority/Naviair (denmark, greenland), Harris - thank you partners!

  8. Re:Doesn't help when you're sitting on the tarmac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...most people cheat anyway and the boarding gate people don't really enforce it.

    I don't know about you–– I fly several times a year, domestic and international. I see the gate agents enforce all the time.

    Is your anecdote more correct than mine?

  9. And will the sattellites track each other...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...for safety, I mean.

  10. Re:Doesn't help when you're sitting on the tarmac by maglor_83 · · Score: 2

    >

    Is your anecdote more correct than mine?

    Yes.

  11. This will help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will help globally or oceanic where there is little or no coverage. Joe Sixpack flying into O'Hare or Atlanta will still have to get in line with the other 120 arrivals an hour. We are already landing them with minimum separation, there is no room for more airplanes, until procedures are made quad approaches.

  12. Already available by rwise2112 · · Score: 1
    This type of system is already available by more than one company. Both offer global coverage and real-time tracking using GPS and the Iridium satellites, so the part about "Aireon said 70 percent of the world's airspace lacks satellite tracking or airline surveillance coverage" isn't true.

    To take advantage of planes flying closer, airports will probably need to expand significantly. Busy airports have planes landing about a minute apart now.

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  13. Maths? by lexman098 · · Score: 1

    Aireon plans to use a constellation of 66 Iridium Communications. Next satellites ... Iridium has 50 in orbit already ... Iridium plans to launch five additional satellites on May 22 from California, completing its full network later this year.