Talk:Air traffic control

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contract towers[edit]

The role of contract towers may be a bit overemphasized--introduced a bit too early and given a bit too much coverage. tbeddab 20:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The opening paragraph of a general article on ATC is too early a place to cover in this amount of detail how ATC is organized in one particular country.BaseTurnComplete 02:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article begins with “The primary purpose of ATC systems worldwide is to separate aircraft to prevent collisions”. Prevent accidents is a duty of everybody, so, it is not necessary to say it. Everybody also knows that two objects don’t occupy the same space. Collisions or accidents occur when something goes wrong in any aspect of life. Nobody says that the purpose of pilots is to conduct aircrafts to prevent collisions. The purpose of ATC is organizing the flow of aircraft traffic and support pilots, period.

This is the stated purpose of ATC, as stated in many official documents worldwide. I provided a reference on the page to clarify this. ATC's primary mission is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system. Pilots are, in fact, totally relieved of responsibility to prevent collision with other aircraft when operating in IMC in class E or higher airspace -- this responsibility is delegated to ATC, and, as a last resort, in-aircraft collision avoidance systems. It is a common misconception that the pilot has undisputed authority to operate his aircraft. Think of it this way -- You can do whatever you want with your car on your own land, but if you choose to drive it on the highway, you must obey the laws. You can do whatever you want with your airplane VFR in class E airspace, but if you choose to fly it into B airspace, you must obey ATC. These are not absolutes, of course -- no one expects a pilot to fly into a thunderstorm because ATC told him to, just as you might run a red light to avoid a rear-end car accident, but you had better have a good reason why you broke the law. Srilm (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a bold statement. I work for the FAA as a Ph.D. researcher, and have been taught for many years by numerous other aviation professionals that the primary function of ATC is precisely to keep aircraft separated. Other duties are also necessary, yes, but safety is Priority 1, everything else is a lower priority. Why would it be unnecessary or trivial to state that? Also "Nobody says that the purpose of pilots is to conduct aircrafts [sic] to prevent collisions"--that, besides being poor grammar, is also incorrect. The primary function of pilot in command (PIC) is the safe operation of the aircraft. They teach that in ground school. For example, PIC is solely responsible for collision avoidance in general aviation in uncontrolled airspace, and remains co-responsible, even during flight following. Even in large aircraft, PIC is ALWAYS responsible for the aircraft, including collision avoidance (to the small degree that that's possible). In practice, in controlled airspace, ATC almost always handles this because they usually have the best equipment. But, that doesn't mean the pilot has NO responsibility. We need to keep this discussion accurate and non-opinionated.PrairieOjibway (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A subtle point here -- The purpose of the ATC "system" is to prevent collisions. That is clearly stated in the FAA order I have listed as a reference, as well as those of other governments and organizations worldwide. HOWEVER... An individual air traffic controller is not, strictly speaking, trying to prevent aircraft from colliding. He is attempting to provide approved separation standards between aircraft and other aircraft, vehicles, and terrain. In other words, his goal is to keep airplanes farther apart than is really necessary (in most cases). This is a "safety buffer" built into the system, so that even if the controller fails to do his job correctly, there is some margin left to compensate for the human error.Srilm (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdruvss (talk • contribs) 18:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please add an explanation of air traffic control terminology, i.e. 'Heavy' and 'Flight Level' and other code words? I don't know enough about ATC to know what's useful and is not, and it would be handy to have now that several airlines are now allowing passengers to listen in on pilots' radio traffic. A subpage might be warranted -- "Things to listen for when listening to controllers talk to pilots."Karlkatzke\

"HEAVY" is one of the weight classes of an aircraft with a max gross weight of 225,000 lbs or more.

"Flight Level or FL) refers to altitude above mean sea level at or above 18,000 feet and where the pilots use an altimeter setting of 29.92 inches. Flight levels are hundreds of feet (ie: FL180 is 18,000 feet.

Flight levels start at 180 in the United States, but not in some other parts of the world. Essentially, flight levels begin where terrain is no longer a factor (the pilot is not concerned with his height above the ground). The goal is to keep fast-moving aircraft traveling large distances on the same altimeter setting as the aircraft around them, so that safe vertical separation is maintained when needed.Srilm (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 'alternative view' was submitted by shaunwall@yahoo.com former ATCO (1964-1988) Mon June 02 1345Z. Will attempt to merge. Pcb21 16:52 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Civil Air as Australian Provider[edit]

In the Air navigation service providers (ANSPs) and traffic service providers (ATSPs) section it lists Airservices Australia, Royal Australian Air Force and Civil Air as service providers in Australia. The first two are correct, the third, Civil Air, is really the trade union for air traffic controllers and I will remove it shortly as they don't actually provide any air traffic control function. If anyone has any reason why it should stay - say so here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuzzdawg (talk • contribs) 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Consider Revising[edit]

Simple physics dictate the amount of traffic that can land at an airport in a given amount of time.

-Very Vauge....sepration requirements are weather, type, aproach in use, airspace, locality dependant.

-"SIMPLE PHYICS" has little to do it, 747 could land in formation like a pair of Thunderbirds. The regulations and requirments have much more to do with trafic capacity.

IFR rules that require larger separation takeoff and landing needing to be separated by X seconds so sepration will be legal after the missed aproach.

-aircraft type (wake turbulance avoidance),

-weather (visiablity and wind),

-enviromental factors / noise abadance / local goverment issues

-approach layout.

Not quite: departing aircraft are separated by time (minutes not seconds) based upon vortex category, landings are separated by vortex category on final approach (for IFR - VFR are given recommended spacings). If there are no vortex separation issues between departures, en-route separation becomes the controlling factor and either time or radar separation is used to separate departures (depending on flight rules and airspace class). If that is not a factor, the general rule that only one aircraft can use the runway at any one time becomes the limiting factrp (although there are some exceptions to this rule). Except in some special cases landing aircraft are not separated from departures (missed approaches are not separated from departures in a systematic manner - they are dealt with tactically when they happen)BaseTurnComplete 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning and Branching out[edit]

This article is getting very long and text-heavy, with seemingly endless blocks of text. Besides pruning and condensing, I think it could be vastly improved if we (a) add some pictures, and maybe more subheadings to help the layout; (b) branch it out into sub-articles. Specifically, areas like TRACON and possibly even EnRoute Control could easily be summarized in a far shorter space, and yet have the details preserved in a sub article using the Main Article: TRACON under headings format. I'm pretty busy these days, but that's where I'm focusing my efforts. -Lommer | talk 03:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies[edit]

All of these could be eliminated by simply referencing the FAR part and section. Then there will be no arguments over whether ATC instructions are advisory or mandatory, and whether the primary role of ATC is separation of traffic, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.170.115 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several incorrect statements in this article. I've only read the first few paragraphs so far, but the following items caught my eye. Note that I'm only familiar with U.S. procedures, so it's possible these statements are true in other countries. But if that's the case the statements should still be cleared up.

  • "VFR aircraft ... do not have set routes and altitudes." True in spirit, but not completely true. FAR part 91 requires VFR aircraft in level cruising flight above 3000 AGL to fly specified altitudes (specifically, odd thousands plus 500 when on headings between 0 and 179 degrees and even thousands plus 500 when on headings between 180 and 359). Despite the belief of some low-time VFR pilots, this is a mandatory regulation, not an FAA suggestion.
Many countries have similar rules, however it's not always mandatory: often it's only advice BaseTurnComplete 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "VFR aircraft are required to have an [sic] transponder." Absolutely false. A transponder is not required for VFR flight. It is only required to operate in (or sometimes around) controlled airspace. Moreover this requirement can be waived with prior permission from ATC (for example, to ferry a non-transponder-equipped aircraft through controlled airspace).
  • (While providing traffic advisories to VFR aircraft) "Controllers do not provide any instructions concerning direction of flight." Sure they do. They're not required to issue these instructions, but they can, and pilots are expected to obey them (although any pilot can always choose to refuse any ATC instruction if required for safety under FAR part 91).

I have a feeling there are more such incomplete/inaccurate statements that I haven't gotten to yet. I think this article needs to be reviewed by an experienced pilot or controller.

Danorris 15:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article operates under a lot of assumptions and provides little or no reference. I put up a dispute tag, but one of the other posters removed it. Rather than get into a revert war, I would rather just state here that this article is written in a very haphazard and conversational fashion and has many inaccuracies. It is most likely written by those that have little experience in actual ATC or those that have limited exposure to ATC and have applied what happens in their facility or country to ATC in general. I have been aske by one of the posters to "be specific" about the inaccuracies in this article, so I will post a couple every time I make this claim. 1. "Most en-route controllers work in Area Control Centers (ACCs) and they subdivide in two main specialties: Terminal and En-route (which further divides into High and Low level airspace)" Not true in all countries. In the USA, Terminal is not an en-route function, but rather tower and approach are Terminal functions. Terminal radar controllers are separate and distinct from enroute controllers in almost every respect, from the equipment they use to the separation standards they apply. In addition, enroute controllers work low, high, and super-high sectors. 2. "Airport Controllers are usually assigned an airspace called a control zone of on average 5 nautical miles radius from the aerodrome with a ceiling of on average 3000 feet AAE (above aerodrome elevation)." The term 'control zone' is outdated and has been semi-replaced (also augmented) by the 'surface area' concept in the USA and most other ICAO countries. Srilm 09:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am an experienced pilot and controller (25/20 years of each). This article is so broken I wouldn't know where to begin. It either needs to be completely rewritten or made specific to the country of the author. I can only speak for the USA, because that is where I am, but if someone reads this article and thinks that it applies to ATC in the USA, they are getting incorrect information in almost every paragraph. Srilm 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, controllers aren't supposed to provide instructions to VFR aircraft receiving flight following. If a VFR pilot receives an instruction he/she doesn't feel like carrying out, the pilot can always say, "Cancel VFR advisories, squawking VFR" and can turn off the radio. (Of course, the pilot still has to keep in radio contact and follow instructions when in "talking-required" airspace like Class B, C, and D in the U.S.) —Cleared as filed. 04:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is 100% inaccurate. I'm making this bold because it needs to be seen, as it is a potential safety issue for inexperienced pilots. I speak as both an experienced pilot and as a veteran controller when I tell you this: once you request ATC service, you are expected to comply with ATC instructions. You may advise that you are "unable" to perform an action, but you'd better be ready to receive a new instruction in lieu of your refused action. When you request VFR flight following, you are essentially submitting to VFR ATC control. Controllers will normally give only advisories to VFR aircraft, but will, as the situation merits, issue instructions to such aircraft as well. The fact that ATC is issuing a VFR aircraft an instruction should be cause for a veteran pilot to "sit up and take notice", as the controllers will usually do this only if there is a seperation or safety issue. Simply cancelling service becuase you don't want to comply with an ATC instruction is not only a great way to get your tail number reported, its inherently dangerous and foolish. Controllers do not provide instructions becuase they get a kick out of it; if an ATC facility issues you an instruction, it is in order to esure proper seperation and safety of flight operations. Try that "cancel advisories I'm going deaf" stuff, and you'll likely be hearing from your local FAA inspector PROMPTLY.--69.143.69.249 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VFR advisories and Flight Following are very US-centred concepts and AFAIK don't have a parallel in ICAO, although certain countries do have similar concepts (in the UK a Radar Information Service is very similar to US Flight Following)BaseTurnComplete 22:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Cleared as filed" is technically correct. Controllers (in the USA) are not supposed to provide instructions to VFR aircraft receiving flight following (E airspace). As the airspace letter goes up (D, C, TRSA, B) the controller gains more authority. On the other hand, an instruction from a controller usually has a purpose. As a 20-year plus controller and pilot, I have seen numerous situations where both pilots and controllers overstepped their authority. But yes, you do have the right to terminate in E airspace. Use that right cautiously. Srilm 00:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a 20-year plus controller and a 25-year plus pilot, I have also noticed over the years that controllers tend to overstep their authority with VFR aircraft. Also, as controllers are trained from the very beginning to use IFR separation standards, they overcompensate for VFR aircraft. "See and be seen" works quite nicely with VFR aircraft moving at traffic pattern speeds. Many times I have shown up for work and and been asked "oh my god, were you flying at XXX yesterday? the pattern had so many targets we couldn't tell them apart, and many of them must have almot hit." Usually my response is "I was there all day, and it was actually pretty quiet. There were a lot of airplanes, but everything was pretty calm and smooth." I have also been issued "terror vectors" for an aircraft that when I finally saw it, was barely close enough for me to even look at it again. I try to teach my controller students that VFR works. Issue traffic and safety alerts, absolutely, but don't overstep your authority.Srilm (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The FAA is responsible for all aspects of U.S. Air Traffic Control including hiring and training controllers, who are employees of the Federal Government." This is not correct. FAA regulates ATC in the US but some controllers are not employees of the FAA but rather of an private contractor hired by the airport or other local authority. This is part of the FAA Contract Tower program. http://www.faa.gov/news/speeches/speeches/Blakey/2004/speeches_blakey_040524.htm KAllendoerfer This inaccuracy seems to have been fixed, though I can't tell by whom. Tx! KAllendoerfer 11:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CRM = TRM?[edit]

With regards to the reference to CRM, a very recent development here in the UK is 'TRM' (Team Resource Management) - basically CRM applied to ATC. Is this term being used anywhere else, or is CRM being used?

In the US, the concept was called ATTE, Air Traffic Teamwork Enhancement. It was never fully implemented, because as usual, the FAA would not fund the time necessary for controllers to be away from the tower/scope to take the training. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.120.119 (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oceanic atc and data links[edit]

Could somebody include something about the recently introduced systems of atc over the pacific and atlantic oceans, whereby computer data links are used to pass information between atc and aircraft when the aircraft is beyond the range of radar (and to some extent voice communication). I'm not an expert on the matter but as a fairly new and interesting technology it would be nice if somebody could include a bit on it. In fact it might even warrant an article of its own...84.65.96.122 02:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean ADS and CPDLC. I'll see if I can squeeze something in. BaseTurnComplete 18:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminal Control[edit]

Do we have to be a bit careful about definitions here? In the UK, "Terminal Control" means Approach Control and lower-level Area Control in areas with many closely located airports, as distinct from Tower control. The text here seems to imply that in the US it means Approach and Tower control (the UK would call these two Airport Control). What about other countries?BaseTurnComplete 21:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest splitting article[edit]

Since there is a wide variance between FAA and ICAO regulations and practices, maybe it would be a good idea to seperate the two and have an ATC(FAA) page and an ATC(ICAO) page? --69.143.69.249 06:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, partially. It would be better to have the main Air Traffic Control page using ICAO terminology and then have separate sections that could be expanded into separate pages that go into detail on how Air Traffic Control is done in each country. The US is not the only country to significantly deviate from ICAO, but ICAO is nominally the global standard BaseTurnComplete 17:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I am a controller in the USA and a great deal of this article, while I am sure it's true in other countries, is not correct when applied to the USA. Any page on ATC worldwide would have to be much more generic than this one is. 75.66.91.10 20:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)srilm[reply]

Disagree. It would be too confusing to the average reader for there to be two articles one for one country the other for all other countries. It would be much better to just have a separate section. 199.125.109.70 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Please bear in mind that non-expert readers need to be able to understand this. If someone types in air traffic control and are given a disambig page giving them a choice of ICAO and FAA they won't know what to choose just to get basic information about how ATC works. Abc30 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc30 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a puzzle because if the article is not split, it is grossly inaccurate about a great many things. But it can't be made accurate unless a lot of content IS split or just deleted outright. I wonder if the community would just rather see a much shorter, more generic article, or an article with a lot of footnotes and exceptions? Srilm 23:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's up with the disputed tag? Please be specific about what these "great many things" you had in mind. I see no need for either footnotes or exceptions. There is a section for differences, use it. I'm deleting the tag. 199.125.109.70 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a few examples I grabbed at random: 1. "Controllers may use a radar system called Secondary Surveillance Radar also known as Airport Surveillance Radar for airborne traffic approaching and departing." SSR and ASR are two different things. Radar may be used for other traffic, not just arrivals and departures. 2. "Ground control must request and gain approval from tower control to cross any runway with any aircraft or vehicle." Very oversimplified and certainly not true at many airports. 3. "While IFR flights are under positive control, VFR pilots can request flight following, which provides traffic advisory services on a time permitting basis and may also provide assistance in avoiding areas of weather and flight restrictions." VFR aircraft are under positive control at times, also. Again an oversimplification that can easily lead to incorrect interpretations. This is not a personal attack, but anyone who reads this article could mistakenly believe it is accurate. I put the disputed tag back up, but it does appear that some housecleaning has been done lately. I'll take the disputed tag back down, but this article needs a lot of work still, and references. Srilm 21:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Air Traffic Management' redirects here[edit]

Air Traffic Management redirects here and indications are that the term is a more general term than 'air traffic control'. Consider the line item shown at ATM and the page Talk:Air Traffic Management. Could someone comment on this? Should 'air traffic management' have an article of its own or should it appear as a concept in 'air traffic control'? Thanks for the input. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the other way round, Air Traffic Management is a broader term encompassing ATC, plus such things as Air Traffic Flow Management (ATFM), Airspace design and other concepts. It would be worth detailing this in a separate article.86.132.198.177 12:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Mapflightmap3.jpg[edit]

Image:Mapflightmap3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

Request cite on "English" usage. I wish to know whether it was agreed upon by treaty or simply a custom. --Voidvector (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of ICAO rules, the international body that sets policy for international aviation. A pilot must be proficient in either English OR the primary language used by the [ATC] station on the ground. Controllers must be proficient in BOTH English and the station's primary language (assuming that is not also English). 66.21.209.18 (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its because at the end of World War II the vast majority of the world's air traffic controllers were English-speaking. This is because of the wide-ranging air routes that were being flown by the Allied air forces, which were to a large part, worldwide, and also because that a large part of Europe was at the German surrender being administered by the Allies. Also the British and Commonwealth, and later the Americans, had the most comprehensive radar systems installed at the various airfields. Basically, it's because the people in charge of the majority of the world's airspace were English-speaking. The other advantage was that English was taught as a second language in many of the world's schools so there were more people familiar with English than with any other language, a result of the influence of the British Empire. The other languages that might have been used such as French and Spanish were not as useful from the geographical point of view, as the parts of the world that spoke these languages, e.g., parts of the South Pacific, South America, were for the most part not the ones were the airlines wanted to operate, the potential for passenger traffic, and hence revenue, was much less. Countries such as the-then Soviet Union, and China, had very little influence as their governments were more insular, and their citizens were unable to make use of air travel in the way that 'Western' citizens were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.249.208 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I suggest that Air traffic controller be merged into this article. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with this proposal. لennavecia 14:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Both are already articles of a good length for WP and merging makes a longer (though not overly so) article. They are distinct topics that are notable and are therefore deserving of separate pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. One is an occupation, the other is a system. Cheers, Mazeau (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Articles point in different directions with minimal duplication--Rumping (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You are a moran. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.85.167 (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I agree with the occupation-vs.-system argument, in particular. — Uncle Bubba (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems best to leave these as seperate articles, I'll remove the merge tag. Rpvdk (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction ?[edit]

I noticed one part of the article said "In September 1964, the FAA instituted two layers of airways, one from 1,000 to 18,000 feet (305 to 5,486 meters) above ground ...."

I am a private pilot, and that should read something like ... one from 1,000 ft AGL (above ground level) to 18,000 ft MSL (mean sea level)....

A minor difference but it is more correct.

207.67.8.130 (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Brian[reply]

ANSP and ATSP section[edit]

This section is pretty convoluted and I will try to clean it up a bit. For example, the heading is "Air navigation service providers (ANSPs) and traffic service providers (ATSPs)" but the first paragraph refers to "a division between the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) (the Regulator) and the ANSP (the Air Navigation Service Provider)". Is the CAA the ATSP? The text is unclear and confusing. — Uncle Bubba (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced Material[edit]

Article has been tagged for needing citations since 2007. Please feel free to reincorporate below material with appropriate references. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred from Talk:Terminal control center[edit]

United States v. Internation/TRACON[edit]

This is an excellent article which, AFAIK, describes how terminal control is done in many countries. However, I think that the acronym TRACON is is a US term for the more general Terminal Control Centre (spell the last word how you will), therefore I've added a sentence to show that it's US terminology.BaseTurnComplete 22:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I've changed the article to reflect a more global point of view. Feel free to make changes if anything I've done doesn't make sense. —Cleared as filed. 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATC Game[edit]

Wesson International used to make a game that shows the non-professional the basics of trying to do air traffic control. --User:David Jordan 03:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I noticed the following on the main page:

Arrival aircraft[edit]

Arrival aircraft are received from the en-route center in compliance with pre-determined agreements on routing, altitude, speed, spacing, etc. The Terminal Control Center controller working this traffic will take control of the aircraft and blend it with other aircraft entering the center airspace from other areas or "gates" into a single, parallel or perpendicular final for the runway. The spacing is critical to ensure the aircraft can land and clear the runway prior to the next aircraft touching down on the runway. The tower may also request expanded spacing between aircraft to allow aircraft to depart or to cross the runway in use. اجمل التهانى القلبية لمحمد زين حبيب قلبي ربنا يخليه ليا ياوحش الشاشة

What does the arabic mean? Can we keep comments in English since that seems to be the predominate language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Overflight aircraft[edit]

Overflight aircraft are aircraft that enter the Terminal Control Center airspace at one point and exit the airspace at another without landing at an airport. They must be controlled in a manner that ensures they remain separated from the climbing and descending traffic that is moving in and out of the airport. Their route may be altered to ensure this is possible. When they are returned to the en-route center, they must be on the original routing unless a change has been coordinated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Potomac vs. Washington Center[edit]

Are Potomac and Washington Center the same thing? --Daysleeper47 16:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, Potomac Approach. Washington Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.118.29 (talk) 03:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US Centric[edit]

This article has drifted back to being very US-centric again. Time for an internationalizing re-write.BaseTurnComplete (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATS Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. No merger was performed. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article lists the functions of air traffic control and not much more so I really don't see the point in this article. However, it may be userful for there to be a section on the ATS in the Air Traffic Control article. As far as I know, Air navigation service providers (ANSP's) are the same thing as ATS's, so we could have the role of the ANSP's within that section, from the information provided by the ATS article. The ATS article also doesn't have much (if any) relevent or referenced information. Hjay50 (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • ATS covers ATC, therefore it is future-proof if they stay separate. For example AFIS and A/G radio units are also ATS units but not ATC units.--Abuk SABUK (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ADS-B[edit]

The article says that ADS-B users pay a provider to carry their messages. I think that is false. It might have been true for ADS-A, a totally different thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.118.29 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah, the only cost is initial equipment install. Should be removed, I think. 98.248.41.62 (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing, ADS-B's only cost is install. No contract/subscription/recurring cost associated with it. Just initial equipment. Also, 118.29 above, I think you mean ADS-C. I can't find any references to ADS-A but ADS-C looks like a contract based service. Source here FireLordAang (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edited it to correctly reflect the purpose of ADS-C vs ADS-B and differentiate the two. FireLordAang (talk) 04:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air traffic control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Mountains Airport world's first airport built without a control tower[edit]

Currently under construction in Sweden, the new Scandinavian Mountains Airport will be the world's first airport built without a control tower:

As air traffic control tower is (rather oddly?) a redirect to this page, that might be worth a mention. Mais oui! (talk) 09:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to clarify your wording: non-towered airports are quite common in the US (and I would imagine elsewhere). Usually they are single-runway general aviation airports. I think what you're trying to point out is that this airport has "virtual" ATC, which sounds like it could be different. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The source does say this will be the first airport to be built with this system in place. It is not the first airport to use the system, there are airports in Sweden already using the system. There is an airport in the US that is currently testing the system, JYO[1]. - GB fan 12:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images on right-hand side of article[edit]

Greetings!

Recently, a number of new photos of ATC towers around the world have been added to the righthand-side of the page. While each might be somewhat architecturally interesting individually, having a haphazard gallery aligned vertically is not adding to the quality of the overall article (see Image do's and don'ts). When I find some time, I may cull and/or rearrange some of the photos....I'd also recommend not adding new ones of towers themselves. The ones currently in the article are more than sufficient to show a reader what an ATC tower looks like.

Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Air traffic control. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disproportionate representation of control towers[edit]

Hi everyone, when looking at this article, one of the glaring oddities is that all seven of the pictures at the top of the page are of control towers. Control towers are just one of the three main types of air traffic control facilities, the other two being terminal/approach control centers, and area route centers. To the untrained outside observer, control towers are usually the image that comes to mind when thinking about air traffic control, because that’s what the public is exposed to the most. However, the reality of air traffic control is that all three types of facilities are equally vital for safe air travel. Please remember that Wikipedia is about what’s true and balanced and proportional about a particular topic, not about what’s popular or well-known. I propose that some of those seven control tower pictures at the top of the article be swapped out for pictures of terminal/approach control centers and area route centers, to more fully provide a balanced and complete representation of what air traffic control really is. Thoughts, comments, and opinions are welcome. Thanks for reading Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Strips Ambiguity[edit]

There is a line towards the beginning of the Technology segment of the page that states "In America, controllers hand each other paper flight progress strips". Does this only refer to the United States, or does this also refer to the rest of North America and South America? On the other hand, are paper strips still commonly used on any other continents? ElToAn123 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElToAn123 I was a controller in Germany and we used paper strips 10 years ago. TreSpillerDama (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split out Airport traffic control tower[edit]

I believe that Airport traffic control tower could stand as a separate article, with substantial potential for expansion. What is the history of such structures? When and where were the first ones built? How has their design evolved over time? What are the typical layout options?

Would anyone be interested in working on this? BD2412 T 17:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_traffic_control&oldid=1216895086"