CNN article on problems in Air Travel, as seen by FAA

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:38:25 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:


Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
So just what do you know that those running the business don't?


Let's see. US airline management, which, collectively since day one
of air travel in the US, have managed to operate at a net loss, says GPS
will solve our problem. An air traffic controller tells you about spacing
requirements for both wake turbulence and operational requirements. And
you believe the airline management?

Completely irrelevant to the issue and there are huge differences
between airline managements. See United and Continental.


Airlines LIE. Pure and simple. Airlines LIE.

And all Mexicans are lazy and emotional as some other biased moron
posted earlier. Ever think you're just a thick idiot that can't
analyze anything?


For example, I was once on a coast to coast flight when, just after
the cabin doors closed, but before push back, our captain gets on the horn
and tells us there will be a two hour delay due to weather. Well, as I
normally pull an FAA weather briefing before any flight I take, whether I'm
flying the airplane or just a passenger, I pulled out my briefing and could
not see any weather probelms anywhere on our route. The passenger in the
seat next to me noticed what I was reading and said that she worked at the
FAA ARTCC which covered our departure airport. She calls her coworkers at
center and they don't know of any weather delays. They then call the FAA
flow control center to see if there are any problems anywhere in the USA.
Nope, none whatsoever. Yet the airline is saying there is a weather
problem.

Typical of the morons that post on the usenet. Ace, in the summer
there are nearly one million flights a month in the US. So, being the
cretin you are, you extrapolate one flight in about a million to come
to this brilliant conclusion?


Airlines LIE.

And idiots post baloney like this on the usenet.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:09:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:


Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
So just what do you know that those running the business don't?

Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if they
admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then they wouldn't
be able to reduce the amount they pay into the system.



Which is completely irrelevant to upgrading the ATC system which is a
GOVERNMENT function for which money as long since been stolen by the
politicos as I said earlier, which, according to estimates, would
increase the capacity by about 25%.

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:38:25 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:


Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
So just what do you know that those running the business don't?


Let's see. US airline management, which, collectively since
day one
of air travel in the US, have managed to operate at a net loss, says
GPS will solve our problem. An air traffic controller tells you
about spacing requirements for both wake turbulence and operational
requirements. And you believe the airline management?

Completely irrelevant to the issue and there are huge differences
between airline managements. See United and Continental.


Airlines LIE. Pure and simple. Airlines LIE.

And all Mexicans are lazy and emotional as some other biased moron
posted earlier. Ever think you're just a thick idiot that can't
analyze anything?


For example, I was once on a coast to coast flight when, just
after
the cabin doors closed, but before push back, our captain gets on the
horn and tells us there will be a two hour delay due to weather.
Well, as I normally pull an FAA weather briefing before any flight I
take, whether I'm flying the airplane or just a passenger, I pulled
out my briefing and could not see any weather probelms anywhere on our
route. The passenger in the seat next to me noticed what I was
reading and said that she worked at the FAA ARTCC which covered our
departure airport. She calls her coworkers at center and they don't
know of any weather delays. They then call the FAA flow control
center to see if there are any problems anywhere in the USA. Nope,
none whatsoever. Yet the airline is saying there is a weather
problem.

Typical of the morons that post on the usenet. Ace, in the summer
there are nearly one million flights a month in the US. So, being the
cretin you are, you extrapolate one flight in about a million to come
to this brilliant conclusion?


Airlines LIE.

And idiots post baloney like this on the usenet.

You are a moron.

GPS can NOT reduce the minimum safe spacing in trail between aircraft.
That spacing is dictated by wake turbulence and the time the runway is
possessed by only one aircraft, specifically the time from when it lands
until it clears the runway or from when it enters the runway and takes off.

Tells us: How high must an aircraft climb before it can execute a
turn (non-emergency)? If it is more than 0' AGL, then you need to maintain
wake turbulence separation for take off. How about landing? You want to
creep up too close and get flipped by wing vortex? That spacing is
dictated primarily by the size of the aircraft. GPS doesn't address either
of these requirements.

Only a moron believes what airline managment says.

PLONK!

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:46:49 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:


Airlines LIE.

And idiots post baloney like this on the usenet.

You are a moron.

Blah, blah, if the shoe fits (as it does) wear it.


GPS can NOT reduce the minimum safe spacing in trail between aircraft.
That spacing is dictated by wake turbulence and the time the runway is
possessed by only one aircraft, specifically the time from when it lands
until it clears the runway or from when it enters the runway and takes off.

Nobody said that cretin. What was said is that it appears the minimum
distance between aircraft can be reduced significantly and then GPS
can control the spacing. Went right over your head didn't it?


Tells us: How high must an aircraft climb before it can execute a
turn (non-emergency)? If it is more than 0' AGL, then you need to maintain
wake turbulence separation for take off. How about landing? You want to
creep up too close and get flipped by wing vortex? That spacing is
dictated primarily by the size of the aircraft. GPS doesn't address either
of these requirements.

More stupid hand waving by this idiot. Nobody said any of that. See
above for what really was said. Either the minimum spacing can safely
be reduced or not. If so, GPS can safely control the spacing. If
not, not.


Only a moron believes what airline managment says.

Sure generalizing moron. There is no difference between United's and
Continental's management. That's why you won't find anybody at United
who believes one word it's management says while Continental's has had
smooth cooperative labor relations for years. Guess which one is the
better airline. You are a complete moron.


PLONK!

The usual response of an idiot who has been shown to be just that.

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps wrote:




John, you seem to be under the impression that GPS is going to somehow
manage to change the physics of time and space. Yes, when airlines use GPS
they can fly direct from point A to point B but if A and B are crowded they
are still going to have to wait on the ground to take off and fly around in
circles waiting to land.

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:09:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:


Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
So just what do you know that those running the business don't?

Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if they
admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then they
wouldn't be able to reduce the amount they pay into the system.



Which is completely irrelevant to upgrading the ATC system which is a
GOVERNMENT function for which money as long since been stolen by the
politicos as I said earlier, which, according to estimates, would
increase the capacity by about 25%.


The GPS sats are up there, the aircraft have the GPS receivers in them. What
exactly do you think the FAA is going to have to build?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:07:55 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 11:34:47 -0600, Newps wrote:




John, you seem to be under the impression that GPS is going to somehow
manage to change the physics of time and space. Yes, when airlines use GPS
they can fly direct from point A to point B but if A and B are crowded they
are still going to have to wait on the ground to take off and fly around in
circles waiting to land.

Where did I say this? I said that if spacing can be reduced due to
safer wake turbulence management then GPS can be used to safely close
those spaces and improve the capacity of the system. That's all.
Just where do you think I am confused. And, if I am wrong (or
confused)

a. why is the FAA going ahead with the building of the system?

b. why are the airlines backing that change?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:17:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:09:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:


Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are all
advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it build.
So just what do you know that those running the business don't?

Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if they
admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then they
wouldn't be able to reduce the amount they pay into the system.



Which is completely irrelevant to upgrading the ATC system which is a
GOVERNMENT function for which money as long since been stolen by the
politicos as I said earlier, which, according to estimates, would
increase the capacity by about 25%.


The GPS sats are up there, the aircraft have the GPS receivers in them. What
exactly do you think the FAA is going to have to build?



It's been all over the news. Here, take a look for yourself

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...ws/2007/10/faa

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Newps posted:

[...] The plain simple fact of the matter is the limiting
factor is lack of runways. No amount of technology can force more
airplanes onto the runways we have now.

Isn't that somewhat dependent on the definition of "...the runways we
have now"? The problem is easily addressed by abandoning the hub
system that overburdens a few locations and barely worked when demand
was low. Alternatively, add hubs to some of the underutlilzed
airports. [...]


Sure that will work but to do it would mean more smaller aircraft in
the system, which I don't personally think is a bad thing but it
could bring about another problem where the ATC is over burdened. Of
course it is a lot easier to hire and train mor controllers than it
is to build more runways.

It's especially pointless to build more runways in the same overtaxed
hubs. Furthermore, it might not matter if there are more aircraft in the
air as long as they aren't all going to the same place. From what I
gather, the overload is derived from the number of arrivals & departures
at peak times. Spread that out, and the load drops. The more ways that
gets spread out, the better the system should function.

Neil

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:17:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 13:09:04 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:


Funny none of the airlines I know of are saying this. They are
all advocating just this upgrade and the FAA is going to have it
build. So just what do you know that those running the business
don't?

Of course they are saying that. They want GA to pay more and if
they admitted the problems were caused by their own scheduling then
they wouldn't be able to reduce the amount they pay into the
system.



Which is completely irrelevant to upgrading the ATC system which is
a GOVERNMENT function for which money as long since been stolen by
the politicos as I said earlier, which, according to estimates,
would increase the capacity by about 25%.


The GPS sats are up there, the aircraft have the GPS receivers in
them. What exactly do you think the FAA is going to have to build?



It's been all over the news. Here, take a look for yourself

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...ws/2007/10/faa


You're an idiot, lean to read, fjukktard.



Bertie