曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

Free flight: immediate impression of dispatcher was that this would be chaos. She can’t fathom that freeflight will benefit anyone. Airline taking responsibility for separation, adding pilot tasks to worry about spacing, separation. Dispatch needs to know where aircraft are (this may go away with technology). Just skeptical about concept, especially in airspace (east coast) that they fly in. Fearful of safety aspect -- e.g., personalities of crews and ability to negotiate with other aircraft in a civil fashion-- both want to avoid conflict by going to next best altitude or lateral path - which one gets better deviation? May need CRM to include negotiation process with other aircraft for deviations to avoid separation violation. All for saving minutes and fuel, but until she sees it working, will be a skeptic. What about a Captain with 100 hours in left seat who has to make decisions about deviating for separation
-could be a problem. Concern about dispatch awareness of where aircraft is, but also kind of overriding issue of “operational control” of aircraft- dispatch relinquishing authority to flight crew, which means other airline concerns may not be considered appropriately.
Dispatch won’t be able to help as much in weather awareness, etc., if aircraft have more independence in planning the route (because dispatch doesn’t have as much awareness of where the aircraft is going in order to anticipate conflicts). Seemed like she was focusing more on self-separation aspect of free flight than on removing of artificial constraints and enhancing the ability to plan and replan for optimal routes. But within their operation, they don’t have the technology to support the ability to “fine tune” the flight plan enroute in order to increase fuel efficiency, their company doesn’t seem to worry about fuel savings at that level (“in the noise”), and in the area (east coast) and altitudes (29000-35000 ft) they fly, don’t see many “direct to’s” happening even in freeflight environment. Could see feasibility for longer haul operations, less congested areas, and higher altitudes.

 

American Airlines Experience with National Route Program
The purpose of this article is to provide a general explanation of the evolution and implementation of the NRP at the Airline Operational Control (AOC) level might be of interest.
For some years the FAA has attempted to offer users more latitude in the selection of user preferred trajectories (UPT) between city pairs that were constrained by the existence of IFR preferential routes (“prefs”). In effect, these routes were not just “preferred” but were virtually mandatory. If the user filed any route but the “pref” it was likely that ATC would re-clear the flight via the FAA “pref” anyway.
The first attempts to allow UPTs on these routes had many names, such as the “Wind Route Program” and others. These programs contained rules that defined departure and arrival routes and times of availability by city pair. These rules were not only restrictive but were sometimes difficult to implement in the then current computer flight planning systems.
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Airborne-Based Conflict Probe(65)