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

(John Kulp) wrote in news:47291ec8.198295103
@news20.forteinc.com:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:40:24 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote in news:47291178.194886732
:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:08:23 -0000, Justin Case
wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

The former Clinton administration opposed ATC privatization.

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

Privatization of Social Security was opposed by the Democrats long
before Bill Clinton came into the White House.

--

True, but that doesn't mean that they didn't oppose it too, as
Hilary
does now.



And what kind of navigation do you use to get around your own head?

Your nose up my ass.




Mmm, Nope



try again, fjukkwit.



Bertie

On Oct 31, 9:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Marty Shapiro wrote :

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
0:

Bertie - Who do you think is the bigger fjukktard - Mxs or
Kulp? Both
seem to by trying real hard for the title of biggest imbecile in the
history of r.a.p., giving even splaps and the fish whose name we no
longer mention a good run for the money.

But splaps provided a slightly different kind of entertainment
'value', including the following which made it into my 'memorable
quotes file:'

"Are they quality products, or did you have some input in their
design?" - McNicoll to Tarver in rec.aviation.ifr

Interestingly, I can't recall Steve ever responding to Mx. Perhaps
this is a useful datapoint, and could be considered for being a metric
in evaluating rank.

Let's call it the 'too insignificant to bother expending cycles on'
metric.

:P

Dunno. Early days yet. I smell a world of promis here though.

And just when we thought it was safe to go outside

[bobbitzed]


Have a day,

Jon

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:40:14 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote in :

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 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.


Are you able to cite a single US government privatization that hasn't
resulted in a windfall for private contractors?


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.

Air Traffic Control records should remain accessible to the public, as
they are now, because they may establish legal culpability.

Private corporations are subject to their auditors,
customers, Sarbanes-Oxley and a whole host of other things.

None of which will grant public access to their records as is
currently possible under the FAA.

Consider the November 16, 2000 case of the Mid Air Collision of a USAF
F-16 and a Cessna 172 over Florida. How would the widow of the C-172
pilot have obtained ATC records indicating the controller manning the
position responsible for alerting the pilots to the imminent collision
was unqualified if those records where the sole property of a private
contractor?


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.

ATC is not about cheaper; it's about safer. Currently the US ATC
system is the best in the world. What criteria did you use to reach
your conclusion, that a new, un-tested privatized ATC system will ever
end up as good, let alone better than the current system? Or is that
just your unsubstantiated guess?

Also consider, what if the private contractor who wins the NextGen
competitive bid ATC contract is an Iranian firm (you know, like the
Dubai ports scandal)? Do you feel that it would be appropriate for a
foreign power to control the US skies?

Recently, John Kulp posted:

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

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.

That is when the delays are occurring. It would be easy to increase the
number of flights without building any new systems if all the additional
flights were scheduled in off-peak times. So, it is your notion that there
may be an improvement during those times that is being questioned.

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,

The major impact that weather has on the airline system is due to the use
of hubs. Bad weather at one of the hubs can ground flights all over the
place. GPS can not move the hubs, so why would there be any change for the
better?

Neil

John Kulp wrote:


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

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


If you are going to quote Wired (our slogan: If it sounds like new
technology we will hype it) as a source of aviation technology I'm tapping
out.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:20:37 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:


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.


Are you able to cite a single US government privatization that hasn't
resulted in a windfall for private contractors?

Sure. Prision privatization. Go look at CCA and see how when they
are doing really well, as opposed to outright losses, they make a 10%
return on equity. Great windfall that huh?



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.

Air Traffic Control records should remain accessible to the public, as
they are now, because they may establish legal culpability.

That's not the same thing. Who said anything about destroying records
anyway? You think you'll get very far suing the government?


Private corporations are subject to their auditors,
customers, Sarbanes-Oxley and a whole host of other things.

None of which will grant public access to their records as is
currently possible under the FAA.

a. that could be made part of the privatization

b. auditors would require them to be available anyway for their review


Consider the November 16, 2000 case of the Mid Air Collision of a USAF
F-16 and a Cessna 172 over Florida. How would the widow of the C-172
pilot have obtained ATC records indicating the controller manning the
position responsible for alerting the pilots to the imminent collision
was unqualified if those records where the sole property of a private
contractor?

By suing them, of course. Have you never heard of discovery?



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.

ATC is not about cheaper; it's about safer. Currently the US ATC
system is the best in the world. What criteria did you use to reach
your conclusion, that a new, un-tested privatized ATC system will ever
end up as good, let alone better than the current system? Or is that
just your unsubstantiated guess?

Says who? Claiming that an ATC system based on WWII technology is
better and safer than a GPS system is plain ludicrous. There are
plenty of these already in use worldwide. Go look at them.


Also consider, what if the private contractor who wins the NextGen
competitive bid ATC contract is an Iranian firm (you know, like the
Dubai ports scandal)? Do you feel that it would be appropriate for a
foreign power to control the US skies?


Did Dubai get the ports? And just where was the scandal? In the
minds of xenophobic idiots like those that locked up the Japanese
Americans in WWII. Guess what the scandal was there. An Iranian
firm. Right. State of the art technology there. HAHAHAHA!

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:09:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:


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

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


If you are going to quote Wired (our slogan: If it sounds like new
technology we will hype it) as a source of aviation technology I'm tapping
out.



Feel free. Do a google search yourself and you will find plenty. This
is just one I came across.

John Kulp wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:09:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

John Kulp wrote:


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

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


If you are going to quote Wired (our slogan: If it sounds like new
technology we will hype it) as a source of aviation technology I'm
tapping out.



Feel free. Do a google search yourself and you will find plenty. This
is just one I came across.

I pretty fully understand how ADS-B will improve certain things about the
ATC system and I didn't get my info from Wired. Looking back at the Wired
article I think it is telling that all of the reader comments pretty much
jive with what we have been saying here.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
:

And you don't even know what GPS is.

Come on, Bertie, John Kulp knows what GPS is and its benefits. For
one, it will automatically increase the size of the airline hubs at a
moments notice. Secondly, the satellites in orbit will help increase
crop production which will eliminate World Hunger.

You just gotta put on your tinfoil hat and listen.

--

"Jon" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 31, 9:04 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Marty Shapiro wrote
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote in
0:

Bertie - Who do you think is the bigger fjukktard - Mxs or
Kulp? Both
seem to by trying real hard for the title of biggest imbecile in the
history of r.a.p., giving even splaps and the fish whose name we no
longer mention a good run for the money.

But splaps provided a slightly different kind of entertainment
'value', including the following which made it into my 'memorable
quotes file:'

"Are they quality products, or did you have some input in their
design?" - McNicoll to Tarver in rec.aviation.ifr

Interestingly, I can't recall Steve ever responding to Mx. Perhaps
this is a useful datapoint, and could be considered for being a metric
in evaluating rank.

Let's call it the 'too insignificant to bother expending cycles on'
metric.

:P

Dunno. Early days yet. I smell a world of promis here though.

And just when we thought it was safe to go outside

[bobbitzed]


Have a day,

Jon


I agree, something should be said for P1, Temp 0. (Pitot, as in no jets
have 'em)

Al G