FAA Caused Flight Delays

FPK1

FPK1

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 21, 2021
Messages
690
Location
Orange County, CA
Display Name
Display name:
FPK1
FPK1 said:
The Biden administration blamed airlines for delays and cancellations but downplayed the FAA's lack of staffing in air traffic control...

Pretty good story on FAA caused delays with focus on Jacksonville Center and plan to hire 3300 controllers over the next two years (with video):

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/20/politics/airline-delays-faa-staffing-biden-administration/index.html
Click to expand...
Don’t get me started on Administrations vis a vis loxodontine vs assanine and ATC staffing circa the 1980’s
 
I would argue that it’s less of a staffing issue (which is the newest excuse for everything) but more of a capacity problem. Same as ZNY. Hiring a bunch of additional controllers isn’t going to the solve the problem.
 
Is it a staffing problem or a lack of funding for staff. Find funds to hiring ATC doesn’t seem to be on any priority list
 
Johnny Costello said:
Is it a staffing problem or a lack of funding for staff. Find funds to hiring ATC doesn’t seem to be on any priority list
Click to expand...
A whole lot less funds would be needed if they used them more efficiently. They spend way to much time trying to train people that simply don't have the inherent skills to do the job. There's a thing called the Train to Succeed program. Countless hours are spent on people that just don't have the DNA to do it. It would be like me saying I wanna be an NBA Basketball Player, and if you would just do a better job of training me, I could do it.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
Countless hours are spent on people that just don't have the DNA to do it. It would be like me saying I wanna be an NBA Basketball Player, and if you would just do a better job of training me, I could do it.
Click to expand...

A few times over the years I've tried to point this out to people who want to teach their children, "you can be anything you want to be." It's OK to inspire them but at some point you gotta be honest and tell six foot six, three hundred and fifty pound Johnny that being a jockey is likely not in his future ...
 
luvflyin said:
A whole lot less funds would be needed if they used them more efficiently.
Click to expand...


Yes, and fewer controllers would be needed if they used them more efficiently. From what little I know about ATC, they seem to be using antiquated technology. Reducing manual operations would allow controllers to handle more planes.

Can an overloaded center off-load to another center's controllers who aren't at capacity? These guys aren't staring out windows with binoculars. It seem to me that a controller could be sitting anywhere and viewing the needed info on his screens, but again this might be limited by antiquated technology. Still, remote towers have been shown to work, so I suspect that ARTCC work could be remoted as necessary.
 
A few years ago, Chicago Center closed down due to a fire. I was on an IFR flight from Wisconsin to Quincy, Illinois, and my clearance was cancelled in the Chicago Center airspace.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, and fewer controllers would be needed if they used them more efficiently. From what little I know about ATC, they seem to be using antiquated technology. Reducing manual operations would allow controllers to handle more planes.

Can an overloaded center off-load to another center's controllers who aren't at capacity? These guys aren't staring out windows with binoculars. It seem to me that a controller could be sitting anywhere and viewing the needed info on his screens, but again this might be limited by antiquated technology. Still, remote towers have been shown to work, so I suspect that ARTCC work could be remoted as necessary.
Click to expand...

Caveat: I'm more familar with TRACONs than ARTCC facilities - having worked the USAF side of the STARS program <mumble> years ago.

One reality is that every center's airspace has "features" , "idiosyncrasies", and "characacteristics" that need to be learned. This isn't a parts is parts thing. A fully rated controller at BOS Center can't necessarily remotely take a position at Atlanta.

and what "antiquated technology" are you referring to? The ARTCC systems haven't been updated recently?
 
This has nothing to do with any particular administration. They’ve been seriously understaffed for about 10 years now. Decline started in 2011 and has resulted in about 77% manning levels.

As far as newer tech, none of what other countries use (digital strips, remote staffing) will reduce traffic delays. Friend of mine worked at BOS tower and they did a trial with digital strips. None of them liked it and they got rid of them. Sure it’s the way of the future but I don’t see it improving traffic efficiency much.

Even the ADS-B benefits haven’t done much for traffic efficiency. It expanded areas to allow enroute sep (3 miles) but didn’t do anything for what matters; terminal departure and arrival separation.

Digital radar vs analog radar has been updated on going for the past 20+ years. I’ve used both and digital has no real tangible benefits over analog. At least in the way of reducing separation / increasing capacity. Fusion has helped for target updates but that’s been in effect for years. The system is simply saturated and any reduction in the decades old radar separation in the terminal environment will result in wake turbulence issues.
 
Half Fast said:
Yes, and fewer controllers would be needed if they used them more efficiently. From what little I know about ATC, they seem to be using antiquated technology. Reducing manual operations would allow controllers to handle more planes.

Can an overloaded center off-load to another center's controllers who aren't at capacity? These guys aren't staring out windows with binoculars. It seem to me that a controller could be sitting anywhere and viewing the needed info on his screens, but again this might be limited by antiquated technology. Still, remote towers have been shown to work, so I suspect that ARTCC work could be remoted as necessary.
Click to expand...
Like @Bob Noel said, any ol’ Controller can’t just jump in and work a Sector he is not familiar with even if he is the most talented Controller ever. The flows of traffic are too unique to each sector to do that. The could do it at a much reduced level of traffic, but then we’re right back where we started. Delays.
There is some pretty high tech stuff in use now. There was a time when it was just blips on the Radar. The Controller had to maintain the complete mental picture in his head of the traffic situation. The capacity for that was the limiting factor in how many planes could be being worked at once. Now there’s all them numbers right there on the screen for each blip. Call sign, altitude, speed and other things like their next fix or where they are landing. One Controller can keep a picture of a whole lot more planes with all that stuff. To the point that frequency congestion and radio discipline have become factors in how big a Sector can be.
 
Last edited:
luvflyin said:
A whole lot less funds would be needed if they used them more efficiently. They spend way to much time trying to train people that simply don't have the inherent skills to do the job. There's a thing called the Train to Succeed program. Countless hours are spent on people that just don't have the DNA to do it. It would be like me saying I wanna be an NBA Basketball Player, and if you would just do a better job of training me, I could do it.
Click to expand...
i have to also question the governments love of hiring based on what boxes are checked on a form rather than what skill set the applicants has......
 
Velocity173 said:
This has nothing to do with any particular administration. They’ve been seriously understaffed for about 10 years now. Decline started in 2011 and has resulted in about 77% manning levels.

As far as newer tech, none of what other countries use (digital strips, remote staffing) will reduce traffic delays. Friend of mine worked at BOS tower and they did a trial with digital strips. None of them liked it and they got rid of them. Sure it’s the way of the future but I don’t see it improving traffic efficiency much.

Even the ADS-B benefits haven’t done much for traffic efficiency. It expanded areas to allow enroute sep (3 miles) but didn’t do anything for what matters; terminal departure and arrival separation.

Digital radar vs analog radar has been updated on going for the past 20+ years. I’ve used both and digital has no real tangible benefits over analog. At least in the way of reducing separation / increasing capacity. Fusion has helped for target updates but that’s been in effect for years. The system is simply saturated and any reduction in the decades old radar separation in the terminal environment will result in wake turbulence issues.
Click to expand...

Digital strips in themselves are not going to streamline anything, using them in conjunction with an arrival manager/departure manager/ground radar/ flight data system does make the process easier though.

ADS-B is far better in the oceanic environment. It is and will continue to reduce separation standards there and allow for more efficient routes.

Reducing separation is not the answer to capacity, the limiting factors is runways and gates. More runways, more simultaneous approaches, more capacity.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Reducing separation is not the answer to capacity, the limiting factors is runways and gates. More runways, more simultaneous approaches, more capacity.
Click to expand...

If car centric sprawl induced demand is any indication, I shudder to think what razing another chunk of metropolitan property would do. I say it's time for some congestion pricing, and the losers of that Hunger game get to drive. Killing lower-volume regional feed would also accomplish the same effect. That well-to-do, housing affordability wrecking mother-WFHer in Toledo can get their happy @ss to DTW in their tesla. :D
 
Seanaldinho said:
Digital strips in themselves are not going to streamline anything, using them in conjunction with an arrival manager/departure manager/ground radar/ flight data system does make the process easier though.

ADS-B is far better in the oceanic environment. It is and will continue to reduce separation standards there and allow for more efficient routes.

Reducing separation is not the answer to capacity, the limiting factors is runways and gates. More runways, more simultaneous approaches, more capacity.
Click to expand...

Yeah we’ve been saying that forever. Even when Roncachamp was on here he said the same thing. Things like ADS-B, STARS, Fusion, digital strips, etc., assist the controller but none of that stuff is a game changer. At least not in a way to significantly reduce delays. 90% of it is a capacity problem.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Reducing separation is not the answer to capacity, the limiting factors is runways and gates. More runways, more simultaneous approaches, more capacity.
Click to expand...
The area in which I think technology can help is developing a traffic plan that extends across the whole country instead of across a sector or two.

We see this frequently when one sector gives us shortcuts and increases our speed then, a sector or two down the road, we're slowed and given delay vectors.

When held on the ground in a GDP, it isn't unusual to finally arrive in the destination terminal area to find that it is operating below capacity. Other times, the GDP or ground stop is not issued soon enough and the terminal area and airport surface approach gridlock.

Those won't be easy problems to solve but, I think, there's room for efficiency gains through better tech.
 
Addressing capacity? In a country this allergic to infrastructure investment? Lol. Thanks for the monday morning funny. Repeat after me: congestion pricing.
 
Larry in TN said:
The area in which I think technology can help is developing a traffic plan that extends across the whole country instead of across a sector or two.

We see this frequently when one sector gives us shortcuts and increases our speed then, a sector or two down the road, we're slowed and given delay vectors.

When held on the ground in a GDP, it isn't unusual to finally arrive in the destination terminal area to find that it is operating below capacity. Other times, the GDP or ground stop is not issued soon enough and the terminal area and airport surface approach gridlock.

Those won't be easy problems to solve but, I think, there's room for efficiency gains through better tech.
Click to expand...

For the record, I am a big proponent of modernizing the system.

Predicting the future is difficult, but it will improve. This is where we can improve the issue between sectors you noted and better improve flow management.

We can continue to make it more efficient, but there is a certain amount of chaos theory involved in having thousands of flights, hundreds of weather systems, thousands of miles of routes, and several hours between departure and arrival. Nevermind the amount of political influence thrown around in the traffic management command center because of the economic impacts.


Capacity is not really an issue to begin with. We have already seen the airlines shift out of their older, smaller aircraft due to the shutdown. Airlines are flying less flights in bigger aircraft. Several airports are seeing passenger counts go up and operations go down (MSP and DTW I believe), cargo is stemming some of that tide but the really busy cargo is going to different airports anyways. The issue is a controller workforce that is faced with such a severe backlog on hiring/training, and internal politicking (controller mobility is no longer really what it used to be, union issues with their contract, etc) that people don't want to show up for their third year of forced overtime in a city they never planned on living in for not enough money.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Addressing capacity? In a country this allergic to infrastructure investment?
Click to expand...
It is difficult to find a commercial airport, of any size, in the US that doesn't have current infrastructure expansion projects underway.

EWR just opened the new Terminal A and work is proceeding to remove the old terminal which will allow all of the new gates to open.

LGA has significantly upgraded and improved the main terminal and continues work upgrading and expanding.

ORD has completed a multi-year project building additional runways, now allowing configurations with three simultaneous arrival runways and two simultaneous departure runways. The expansion of Terminal 5 is complete while remodeling continues. Taxiways are currently being relocated to make room for the expansion of the C concourse and addition of another concourse west of that. These concourses will allow the replacement of Terminal 2 with a new international arrivals and CBP facilities and more gates.

BNA is in the middle of a multi-year expansion and improvement project which will include a new CBP facility, a new D concourse (completed), on-airport hotel, remodeled C/B concourses, expanded and remodeled A concourse, and a satellite concourse. Road construction is underway to move the bridge over I-40 to the east to increase the space available for the airport for parking and traffic management.

SAT has a new terminal.

MSY has a new terminal.

MCI just opened a new terminal.

SFO recently opened new concourses and air-side connections between them.

IAH built the new north C gates and is currently in the process of rebuilding and expanding the D concourse and the E/D Terminal.

SLC has a new terminal/concourses.

DEN has extending each of their three concourses, both on the east and west side of each, and the main hall reconstruction is continuing.

LAX has a big update and expansion ongoing on the north side and the elevated people mover project ongoing which will relieve the traffic congestion in the big "U". The TBIT west terminal has been expanded with additional concourses. Construction of Terminal 9 is planned.

IAD is working to replace the old A Concourse with a new concourse over the "C" train station, just opened the airport link to Washington's metro, and has just started the process for replacing the "temporary" C/D concourse build in 1985.

SAN has a large construction project going now which will increase parking and upgrade/expand gates.

DFW is going to build a sixth terminal.

MCO just opened a new terminal and intermodal transportation facility with links to Brightline's rail service.

So, lots of infrastructure improvements recently completed, in progress, and being planned.
 
Larry in TN said:
It is difficult to find a commercial airport, of any size, in the US that doesn't have current infrastructure expansion projects underway.
[snip]
Click to expand...

Sadly, KBOS hasn't done anything to increase runway capacity. In fact, over the past few decades, we've lost runway capacity.
 
Larry in TN said:
So, lots of infrastructure improvements recently completed, in progress, and being planned.
Click to expand...

Those are all improvements that are visible to the eye. Much harder to convince folks to spend money on infrastructure they can't see.
 
Seanaldinho said:
Digital strips in themselves are not going to streamline anything, using them in conjunction with an arrival manager/departure manager/ground radar/ flight data system does make the process easier though.

ADS-B is far better in the oceanic environment. It is and will continue to reduce separation standards there and allow for more efficient routes.

Reducing separation is not the answer to capacity, the limiting factors is runways and gates. More runways, more simultaneous approaches, more capacity.
Click to expand...
RVSM was a huge improvement Oceanically when it happened and then later when it was done domestically, a big help in getting more airplanes in the air. But yeah, they gotsta get down and land somewhere. I don't know how much further they can go with Simultaneous Approaches. Things are being run pretty tight . You can only let the planes get so close regardless of the technology. Used to be just parallel approaches to 2500 between runways staggering them, now known as simultaneous independent. And simultaneous without the stagger with 4300 between runways. Now they got close spaced, triple, offset and get em really close with PRM. I can't see much more procedurally they can do. Are there a lot of places where the layout is there to do it but they just aren't getting the equipment in to do it?
 
luvflyin said:
RVSM was a huge improvement Oceanically when it happened and then later when it was done domestically, a big help in getting more airplanes in the air. But yeah, they gotsta get down and land somewhere. I don't know how much further they can go with Simultaneous Approaches. Things are being run pretty tight . You can only let the planes get so close regardless of the technology. Used to be just parallel approaches to 2500 between runways staggering them, now known as simultaneous independent. And simultaneous without the stagger with 4300 between runways. Now they got close spaced, triple, offset and get em really close with PRM. I can't see much more procedurally they can do. Are there a lot of places where the layout is there to do it but they just aren't getting the equipment in to do it?
Click to expand...

I meant more that if you have more runways you can be running more approaches and arrivals at the same time. Poor phrasing, apologies.
 
kayoh190 said:
Those are all improvements that are visible to the eye. Much harder to convince folks to spend money on infrastructure they can't see.
Click to expand...

Also difficult to convince many folks (myself included) to spend money on either type when there is such a ridiculous level of funding waste on any project being run by the government.
 
Seanaldinho said:
I meant more that if you have more runways you can be running more approaches and arrivals at the same time. Poor phrasing, apologies.
Click to expand...
Nah. You said it pretty good. "...More runways, more simultaneous approaches, more capacity..." Meaning with more runways you can have more simultaneous approaches. I read into it as more runways and more simultaneous to those that were already there.
 
Need to start allowing airlines to fly formation. More aircraft moving as one means more pax arriving and departing. Section landings and section departures as well.
 
Bob Noel said:
Sadly, KBOS hasn't done anything to increase runway capacity. In fact, over the past few decades, we've lost runway capacity.
Click to expand...

Is in a no win situation, completely land and water locked with enough environmentalists and other opponents that expansion is a non starter. Honestly their next step is to build a new airport somewhere else... probably New Hampshire.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Is in a no win situation, completely land and water locked with enough environmentalists and other opponents that expansion is a non starter. Honestly their next step is to build a new airport somewhere else... probably New Hampshire.
Click to expand...

good luck with that *cough* NIMBY *cough*
 
Velocity173 said:
Need to start allowing airlines to fly formation. More aircraft moving as one means more pax arriving and departing. Section landings and section departures as well.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, a man of culture. In the church of visual separation, we beseech thee pilots to acknowledge traffic a'yonder - lest thee receive penalty vectors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top