Air Traffic Control Entities

 

It is not very well known, but air traffic control towers are not the only facilities that help direct and control aircraft. Two different entities are Air Route Traffic Control Centers and Terminal Radar Approach Control facilities.

The Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) purpose is to communicate and give information to the aircraft as it is flying in the en route airspace at or above 17,000 feet (What, n.d.). Each center, which has control over more than 100,000 square miles of airspace, is broken up into many sectors, with each sector having its own radio frequency that the air traffic controller uses to communicate with the pilot when they are in that specific sector (How, n.d.).

The Terminal Radar Approach Control facilities (TRACON) control the airspace around high operational airports. Due to this airspace being so congested, the control of the aircraft is delegated to TRACON for them to handle when the aircraft are below 20,000 feet and within 30 to 50 miles of the airport. Like the ARTCCs, TRACONs are divided into sectors and each sector controls up to 15 aircraft (How, n.d.).

The difference between these two facilities are the separation requirements. ARTCC facilities dictate that aircraft must keep a separation of one another by 5 nautical miles laterally and 1000 feet vertically, while TRACON facilities must keep aircraft separated by 3 nautical miles laterally (How, n.d.). While ARTCC facilities must deal with a higher operations tempo and the crossing of many aircraft in a difficult environment, both the ARTCC and TRACON controllers focus on giving the proper headings and information to aircraft, all within a radar room.

 

(word count: 263)

 

References

How Air Traffic Control Works. (n.d.). NASA. Retrieved August 28, 2022, from

https://hsi.arc.nasa.gov/groups/AOL/downloads/HowATCworksToday.pdf

What is an Air Traffic Controller? (n.d.). NATCA. Retrieved August 28, 2022, from

https://www.natca.org/education/what-is-an-air-traffic-controller/

Noise Pollution at Airports

 

                                               (Schiphol Airport noise reducing hedges)

            

            The sound of aircraft taking off from the local airport or flying over head can be quite a disturbance for people who live near an airport. The issue of noise pollution can cause an even greater concern for airport managers because it is a difficult and expensive issue to tackle. Many main airports in the United States are surrounded by cities and there has been a lot of concern from local communities of the noise disturbance. Unless you build an entire new airport in a different area, which requires large hurdles such as funding and the acquirement of property, the solutions to mitigating noise pollution at airports can be quite an inconvenience to airport managers. The current solutions involve different arrival and takeoff trajectories, sound barriers, nighttime curfews, and the restriction of flying times for loud aircraft (Visser & Wijnen, 2008). These mitigation strategies can lower the noise but also decrease the amount of flying time that can be conducted, which poses a problem for the high demand of flights and can cause a negative economic impact.

        

                                                        (Hush Kit)                

            The best solution for noise pollution would be in the prevention of it by planning and designing an airport or aircraft to have the minimal amount of noise pollution. In Amsterdam, the Schiphol Airport designed a series of ditches and hedges near the runway that deflects the aircraft noise and has reduced the noise by 50% (Hansman, 2015). By building an airport with certain noise reducing features, there would be no decrease of flights or the issue of public demands to lower noise pollution. Regarding aircraft, designing them so that the engines produce less sound, such as hush-kits, is another way to tackle the issue at the planning and designing stage (Visser & Wijnen, 2008). A hush kit slows down the exhaust of an aircraft and is built with sound absorbing materials (Mola, 2005). By updating older aircraft with hush kits and designing newer aircraft with them, the other more costly and inconvenient solutions would not be necessary.

(word count: 335)

 

References

Hansman, H. (2015, May 27). This Crazy Land Art Deflects Noise From Amsterdam’s 

            Airport. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved August 20, 2022, from

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/crazy-land-art-deflects-noise-from-

amsterdams-airport-180955398/

Mola, R. (2005). Hush Kits. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved August 20, 2022, from

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/hush-kits-8747402/

Visser, H., & Wijnen, R. (2008). Management of the environmental impact at airport 

           operations. Nova Science Publishers, Incorporated. Retrieved August 19, 2022, from

https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/lib/

erau/reader.action?docID=3019371

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958

 

The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 was instrumental in shaping the aviation industry over the years. After two aircraft that belonged to Trans World Airlines and United Air Lines collided in 1956, it became apparent that aviation safety was an issue, leading President Eisenhower to sign the Federal Aviation Act into law (Timeline, n.d.). Civil aviation safety, which was previously controlled by the Civil Aeronautics Authority, was now under the control of the new and independent Federal Aviation Agency (A, n.d.). The birth of the Federal Aviation Agency gave rise to many new safety implementations, including the rule that pilots couldn’t fly over the age of 60 on certificated route air carrier operations or on large aircraft engaged in supplemental air carrier operations (Timeline, n.d.). They also implemented new standards and technology to be used in air traffic control operations, which were lacking in a time where the aviation industry was steadily increasing.

The Federal Aviation Agency later became what we have now as the Federal Aviation Administration, where we can see some of the same regulations that were implemented 60 years ago. The “age-60 rule” is still in place for pilots of commercial aircraft and smaller propellor aircraft carrying ten or more passengers to guarantee that people who have reached a cognitive and performance decline are not flying outside the acceptable risk to public safety (FAA’S, 2005). The Federal Aviation Act was what gave birth to the FAA that we know now. It was becoming apparent that safety was a large concern and due to this act, the FAA has mitigated many safety concerns and has transformed the aviation industry into a safe and reliable system.

(word count: 277)

 

References

A Brief History of the FAA. (n.d.). Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved August 14,                                                                                                                                                                  2022, from https://www.faa.gov/about/history/brief_history

FAA’S Age 60 Commercial Pilot Rule. (2005, July 19). US Department of Transportation.

Retrieved August 12, 2022, from

https://www.transportation.gov/testimony/faa%E2%80%99s-age-60-commercial-

pilot-rule

Timeline of FAA and Aerospace History. (n.d.). Federal Aviation Administration. Retrieved

August 12, 2022, from https://www.faa.gov/about/history/timeline

Human Factors in the Aviation Industry

 

Human factors in aviation are any characteristics of a person that can negatively affect human performance and therefore, the safety of flight. They include things such as stress, improper communication, complacency, lack of sleep, lack of training, and the wrong behaviors and attitudes, among other things. These factors cause human errors in people’s performance but by identifying these factors, we can understand them and apply recommended practices to mitigate the risks (FAA, 2022). It is also important to understand that human factors don’t just apply to pilots but includes everyone involved in the aviation industry, such as maintenance technicians and air traffic controllers.

            Air traffic controllers are required to work under stress where abnormal situations can occur. They are highly trained, but accidents can happen, such as the Tenerife airport disaster. When abnormal situations and emergencies occur, air traffic controllers are required to multitask and exchange a lot of information in a small amount of time and change task priorities (Malakis et al., 2010). The good news is that they work in teams, which can mitigate critical mishaps. They effectively communicate with one another and if an emergency situation arises, the coordinating controller who is the one that establishes the overall plan of the entry and exists of the aircraft, informs the watch supervisor who has the overall responsibilities of the operations (Malakis et al., 2010). The coordinating controller also assists the executive controller who is the one that carries out the overall traffic plan and communicates with the aircraft. During a situation, the executive controller will also inform the coordinating controller so that they can change their priorities. All three of these roles work together to communicate and interact with one another to mitigate emergency situations. Another thing that air traffic controllers do is if the workload is becoming too much for someone, some of it can be delegated to another person which ensures that if a situation does arise, that person isn’t too overwhelmed. By decreasing their workload, stress, having the proper communication, and by being able to effectively work as a team, air traffic controllers are able to resolve stressful situations. 

(word count: 354)

 

References

Federal Aviation Administration. (n.d.). The Role of Human Factors in the FAA. Retrieved August 6, 2022, from https://www.hf.faa.gov/role.aspx

Malakis, S., Kontogiannis, T., & Kirwan, B. (2010). Managing emergencies and abnormal situations in air traffic control (part II): Teamwork strategies. Applied Ergonomics, 41(4), 628–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.12.018