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

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:15:45 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:


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, learn to read, fjukkktard.

Whatever you say ******.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in :


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

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
business.

Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
example.

Privatization also removes government accountability; private
corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.


b. why are the airlines backing that change?

The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]





[1]
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=iraq+for+sale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
http://www.iraqforsale.org



[2] http://www.boeing.com/phantom/ast/atm.html

Larry Dighera wrote in
:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in :


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

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
business.

Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
example.

Privatization also removes government accountability; private
corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.


b. why are the airlines backing that change?

The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]




If ATC is privatised, light aviation is, in a word, ****ed.



Bertie

Recently, John Kulp posted:

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)

From what you said on 10/29/07:

"Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
handle about 25% more flights on the same runways."

And restated in your response to Jim:

"So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
separation to be maintained?"
--
Jim in NC


"GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more."

It appears that your expectations are too optimistic. The reasons for the
required separation in the destination airspace are wake turbulence and
runway safety. GPS will not have an impact on that, and that is where and
why the delays are occurring. As several others have explained, getting
there faster will not mean getting on (or off) the ground faster. It may
be that having 25% more flights in the air would only aggravate the
situation, as the required separation would still have to be maintained in
the airport's environment.

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

b. why are the airlines backing that change?

There are some benefits to upgrading the technology, particularly in
regard to near-misses en route. But, as long as the airlines' scheduling
and hub system are unchanged, there probably won't be any big improvement
in the number of delays. Go to one of the busier airports and observe the
arrivals and departures and you'll get an idea of why.

Neil

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:07:05 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:52:22 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in :


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

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

It also opposed social security privatization which the Swedes have
done quite well


The current administration wants to privatize virtually every
government service. In the case of the FAA, privatization would
enable FAA to cut their workforce significantly, dodge liability
exposure, and open the federal coffers to by outsourcing to big
business.

How does that work? Why wouldn't the government just be getting out
of the business?


Big business benefits from government privatization. Consider
Halliburton's contract to do the Army's laundry in Iraq[1] for
example.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Depends on the contract.


Privatization also removes government accountability; private
corporations are not subject to FOIA requests, for example.

Why should the government be accountable for something they are no
longer doing. Private corporations are subject to their auditors,
customers, Sarbanes-Oxley and a whole host of other things.



b. why are the airlines backing that change?

The airline industry, including the airliner manufacturers, would like
nothing better than to remove congressional FAA budget oversight, and
wrest the balanced governmental allocation of National Airspace System
resources from US citizens, so that they can advance their air carrier
agenda at the expense of other airspace users. Airliner manufacturer,
Boeing, is also in the privatized ATC business.[2]

Why not if they can do it better and cheaper than the government,
which is a virtual sure thing. Who else but the government do you
know that is still using WWII technology like the FAA?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:08:28 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:



Whatever you say ******.


Awwww, hiwt yow widda feewings?


Fact is, I know what I'm talking about and you don't.

Hardly. You just continue to make a complete idiot out of yourself by
posting crap like this and adding nothing to the discussion.
Laughable really ******

"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?

He IS in the business, ATC, to be exact. I would make book on what he says
on this subject.
--
Jim in NC

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:16:17 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Recently, John Kulp posted:

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)

From what you said on 10/29/07:

"Gates can be a problem sometime but not runways. The GPS system would
handle about 25% more flights on the same runways."

And restated in your response to Jim:

"So you are saying, at peak rush times, there is 25% extra time for
separation to be maintained?"
--
Jim in NC


"GPS allows for closer spacing and straighter flight paths allowing
more flights to be handled in the same time span. About 25% more."

That's what is being said about the system. Like I asked, where did I
say anything that defies the laws of physics? Not here for sure.


It appears that your expectations are too optimistic. The reasons for the
required separation in the destination airspace are wake turbulence and
runway safety. GPS will not have an impact on that, and that is where and
why the delays are occurring. As several others have explained, getting
there faster will not mean getting on (or off) the ground faster. It may
be that having 25% more flights in the air would only aggravate the
situation, as the required separation would still have to be maintained in
the airport's environment.

And it may well not. You are only looking at rush hour times in this
analysis that I can see. In that period, there may or may not be an
improvement. But, in non-rush hours time when flights are delayed due
to say weather along the flight path that an airplane is taking that
could be avoided using GPS, or putting more flights in general in the
space in those non-rush hours times, capacity might be significantly
increased. How does anyone know how many of these types of flights
are running into rush hour times because they are delayed due to
controllable factors like this? I have had this happen to myself
several times.


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

b. why are the airlines backing that change?

There are some benefits to upgrading the technology, particularly in
regard to near-misses en route. But, as long as the airlines' scheduling
and hub system are unchanged, there probably won't be any big improvement
in the number of delays. Go to one of the busier airports and observe the
arrivals and departures and you'll get an idea of why.

Scheduling, I think, might well improve because it could be more
precisely managed with GPS as I point out above. Simply focusing on
rush hour times misses the forest for all the trees.

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"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?

He IS in the business, ATC, to be exact. I would make book on what he
says on this subject.

I'm willing to bet Kulpo would not.



Bertie

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:46:30 -0400, "Morgans"
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?

He IS in the business, ATC, to be exact. I would make book on what he says
on this subject.
--

Then he can answer can't he?