Forbes Article Problematic

I’ve lately heard that I’m perhaps a little too indignant (angry?) about the poor understanding of ATC in the popular press, so I’ve tried to give it a rest. However, a Forbes article written by Mark Tatge and published online on Monday, 4 June 2007, wouldn’t let me go…

The title of the article is, “How To Fix Air Travel,” and in it Tatge suggests 11 ways to make air travel more pleasant and expeditious. I’ve not got a lot of heartburn about the ideas themselves—they’re largely what we’ve been talking about for quite some time. However, Tatge’s understanding of air transport and his explanation of things like ATC leave something to be desired.

For instance, in the referred-to, copyrighted story, he provides this nutshell explanation:

Keeping track of all those planes has become problematic. That’s because the nation’s air traffic control system relies on an antiquated 1950s architecture, known as radar that was cutting edge in the days of Ozzie and Harriet.

Radar, or radio waves, sweep the sky every 12 seconds transmitting images of approaching aircraft that can then be viewed by controllers onscreen in a series of centers spanning the nation.

En route to their destination, planes must fly over the control centers instead of a straight line, wasting fuel and time. Radar only gives an approximate location of where a plane is headed, complicating aircraft controllers’ jobs.

Avoiding an argument about what constitutes “1950s architecture” for the time being, as well as the differing update rates of ASR versus ARSR, and not even considering mosaic displays (i.e. displays in the ARTCCs don’t have a 12 second update rate), let’s take a look at that last paragraph.

“En route to their destination, planes must fly over the control centers instead of a straight line…” Oh nonsense. Taken literally, Tatge is saying that all commercial aircraft must fly over places like Palmdale, California, and Oberlin, Ohio, home to a couple of the FAA’s ARTCCs. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I’d assume he’s complaining about having to fly airways or waypoint-to-waypoint in a structured routing system, as opposed to free flight. However, the way it’s written it makes no sense at all, especially given that he’s already defined “centers” in the previous paragraph as places where controllers view radar screens. And if he’s talking about having to fly through an ARTCC’s airspace, then somebody needs to remind him that all airspace in the US is within some center’s boundaries.

And then there’s, “…[r]adar only gives an approximate location of where a plane is headed, complicating aircraft controllers’ jobs.” What the hell is that supposed to mean? In truth, I suppose the meaning of this sentence depends what Tatge means by “…where a plane is headed…” If he is talking about an aircraft’s destination, then he’s just wrong because radar tells us less than the “…approximate location of where a plane is headed.” In fact, primary radar (remember: “radio waves”) tells us absolutely nothing about destination. On the other hand, if he’s talking about simple heading, then radar tells us everything—much more than “…approximate location of where a plane is headed.” Finally, who the heck says things like “…approximate location of where a plane is headed?” Nothing like being vague.

There’s more not to like about the article, but I’ll back off at this point. Thought I’d feel better once I got some of this off my chest, but no dice. Guess I am a little angry.

-Dave