To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
I was flying a King Air into Dulles in trail of an A380, rather apprehensive about its legendary wake, when the tower controller asked for my airspeed. I inflated my number a little since I assumed he was dissatisfied with the increasing gap. I should have answered “the speed a smart bug-smasher pilot would maintain to get as far away as possible from the monster ahead!”
As a retired controller, I will say Dave said everything correctly. The sequence starts with the ground controller based on everything he mentioned. At my high-density TRACON we actually had it in the Facility Ops manual that GC was to ALWAYS put a different (departure) gate plane between two of the same gate. Like he said, then we could roll ’em at nose-wheel lift-off and move some traffic.
Having been in aviation all my life and having experienced far more than I care to admit, I think it is safe to say that the current volume of air traffic is going to bring one disaster after another. This is regardless of how professional or capable the current crop of pilots and controllers may be. And yes, many are very capable and very professional. We have reached the limits of what can be safely done in the sky and on the ground with ADSB, TCAS and the various other equipment that may come shortly. The traffic is just too dense in today’s skies. When a piece of metal carrying 200 people and traveling at 160 knots meets another piece of metal doing the same thing, it makes a terrible noise. Trying to put 30-50 of those pieces of metal all on one small piece of real estate all at the same time is asking for serious consequences. This last year or so has been disastrous and I predict that it will get worse if traffic is not decreased.
Your comments at the beginning on the difficulty of radio transmission in crowded airspace is a safety problem that pilots and controllers incorrectly accept as normal. It’s not.
For example, when flying into Chicago, I was always impressed with the controllers as they pounded out their commands. While impressed, I later realized that the controller was stressed, something controllers and pilot should never accept as normal.
Next the complexity of sequencing is a function of trying to do it too late. Airlines/users could prevent most delays (arrival/departure) by setting up the sequence “day of”, hours prior to landing/takeoff.
When it comes to sequencing, as you can see below, Bryan Bedford (FAA Administrator), as I presume the heads of most Air Navigation Service Providers (ANSPs), believes telling airlines/pilots how to operate their Billions of dollars of aircraft is a good thing. As a 45-year pilot (USAF, United, Business jets), with decades of airline operational and ATC expertise, I disagree and, if implemented, FAA’s Brand New ATC System (BNATCS) plan will increase airline costs and reduce airline quality.
“We’ll tell you where we want you to be in three dimensions…and we’ll tell you where we want you to be to hit that top of descent mark to [meet] the constraints of the runway”. (Bryan Bedford, Washington Aero Club, Jan 22, 2026).
Airlines and FAA need to turn this around to where airlines do the telling and FAA/ATC does the listening.
Next, FAA’s $31.5 BNATCS plan will not reduce airline delays since it fails to focus on the root cause of delays – random Point Overloads. That said, BNATCS is a positive for equipment replacement, which is needed.
Even worse for airlines/passengers, as currently planned, the BNATCS ATC Centric Flow Management plan will, as Mr. Bedford’s statement above shows, further institutionalize ATC’s decades old process of control over the movement of the airline’s/user’s aircraft and the airline’s very expensive, but unnecessary block time buffers (airline’s largest controllable cost). This will haunt the airline’s “day of” operation and profits for decades into the future, eliminating any chance of airlines achieving “day of” Operational Excellence.
Think about it, who wants a government agency to control their primary production asset, or who believes a government agency can make an airline’s operation efficient? No one.
Airline Delays – Random Point Overloads White Paper (AGIFORS, 2026-04-14) – https://greenlandings.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/AGIFORS-Random-Point-Overloads-White-Paper-2026-04-14.pdf
Who Controls the Movement of the Aircraft? (Leeham News, 2026-03-31) – https://leehamnews.com/2026/03/31/who-controls-the-movement-of-the-aircraft/
What Airlines Should Want? (MTS, Winter, 2026) – https://greenlandings.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/What-Should-Airlines-Want-MTS-WINTER-2026.pdf