On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:01:16 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

By flying different paths than now.

Without moving runways, that's going to be difficult.

Completely ridiculous. The problem is the runways are at capacity
GIVEN the ATC system/paths being used. Change the path to shorten the
paths and you increase capacity. Got that yet?


Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
can't track aircraft.

GPS is a receiver-only system. It provides guidance to the aircraft in which
it is installed. It provides nothing to anyone else, by design.

More complete nonsense. Go read the other post which actually tells
you what it does.


I have news for you. I was on an international
flight a while back and was talking to the relief pilot. He said the
US was the only country NOT using GPS and was totally outdated. So
how, then, do the flights get to where they're going?

What your pilot doesn't know is that the FMS in every aircraft (almost) uses
GPS as one of its navigation sources. The FMS uses GPS, VORs, ILS, ADF, and
potentially whatever else is on the aircraft for navigation. So the U.S. is
making heavy use of GPS.

Oh, so a long experience pilot with a major carrier who uses these
systems every day doesn't know what he's talking about but you do huh?
Right. It's apparent from virtually all your posts that you have no
clue what you're talking about.


Still, this has nothing to do with _tracking_ aircraft by GPS, which is not
possible.

Completely stupid comment as usual.


Ah, so you reduce shedules making them less convenient for the public,
force aircraft to buy and sell aircraft they don't want, etc. etc.
Brilliant.

As fuel dwindles and CO2 increases, it will certainly seem so, although I
rather consider it self-evident.

Self-evident to a complete idiot. Fuel isn't dwindling. There is
plenty of it. CO2 footprints of aircraft ARE dwindling with more fuel
efficient engines, wing tips, etc.etc. See 787.