On Sep 12, 1:29 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airl...ing/index.html

"He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
that's been 10 years in the making.

"'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
saying no,' Castelveter said."

I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.

Not necessarily airport flight paths, but the general "corridors"
in which they fly. My understanding of this GPS based system
is that it planes will generate their own flight paths and to
a great degree "control" themselves. The result will be more
direct paths between airports. Paths which are not currently used
much or at all.


"She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from
1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based
technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces
noise for 600,000 people.'"

I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would reduce
delays.

The system being proposed is that each plane "broadcast" to other
planes their location, based upon GPS coordinates. Possibly also
their flight plans. It gets ATC "out of the loop" to a great degree
and merely puts them in more of a "monitoring" mode. I'm sure
each airport will still have a tower controlling take-offs and
landings.


I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better.

From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number of
runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are
where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays occur
(or at least that's their ultimate origin).

That's one, but not the only one.


Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying 737s
and A320s and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a
day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air
traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar
routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more
resources.

There is plenty of airport capacity out there. There are a few
that are
all jammed up, but plenty more that have little crowding at all.

I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is they
nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and
inefficient.

Their margins are low and they are trying to increase profits
through
volume.

"The Air Transport Association's Castelveter also focused on corporate
aviation.

"The guys who fly around in private jets" make up about 40 percent of
the air traffic in the Northeast, he said. "One would think it's not just
airlines that would be asked to reduce capacity," he said.

Is this number correct?


I dunno. Probably depends upon how you think "traffic" should be
measured. Take-offs? Passengers? Miles? Hours? Not to
mention what is meant by "private".