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

John Kulp writes:

They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
GPS allows closer flying.

How does this diminish noise to residents adjacent to airports (the only ones
affected by noise)?

That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.

GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.

Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
you want to do?

Fly larger aircraft less often to the major airports, reducing fuel
consumption, pollution, stress on the environment, and noise.

Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive
and go up?

Regulate the nature and amount of commercial airline traffic, which is almost
the same thing.

They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
heights.

Flying multiple flights with smaller aircraft is much less efficient than
flying once with a larger aircraft.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:16:07 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
GPS allows closer flying.

How does this diminish noise to residents adjacent to airports (the only ones
affected by noise)?

By flying different paths than now.


That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.

GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.

Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
can't track aircraft. 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US was the only country NOT using GPS and was totally outdated.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?


Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
you want to do?

Fly larger aircraft less often to the major airports, reducing fuel
consumption, pollution, stress on the environment, and noise.

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.


Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive
and go up?

Regulate the nature and amount of commercial airline traffic, which is almost
the same thing.

Sure. Regulation does wonder. Deregulation did nothing for the
industry. Brilliant once again.


They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
heights.

Flying multiple flights with smaller aircraft is much less efficient than
flying once with a larger aircraft.

You can babble this all you want. It hardly makes it true. And it's
not.

John Kulp wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:16:07 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.


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



GPS was used to guide the bombs to pre-determined fixed locations, which
is a bit different than how it would work with aircraft.

To use GPS for tracking an aircraft, the GPS device would be on the
aircraft being tracked and it would have to broadcast this location
information to the trackers.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:36:47 -0700, mrtravel wrote:

John Kulp wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:16:07 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.


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



GPS was used to guide the bombs to pre-determined fixed locations, which
is a bit different than how it would work with aircraft.

To use GPS for tracking an aircraft, the GPS device would be on the
aircraft being tracked and it would have to broadcast this location
information to the trackers.

True, but GPS is GPS. They all use the same satellites.

John Kulp writes:

True, but GPS is GPS. They all use the same satellites.

Yes, but GPS is useless for tracking, and that is by design.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:01:47 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

True, but GPS is GPS. They all use the same satellites.

Yes, but GPS is useless for tracking, and that is by design.

Do you ever have one clue about what you're posting. See below:

A GPS tracking unit is a device that uses the Global Positioning
System to determine the precise location of a vehicle, person, or
other asset to which it is attached and to record the position of the
asset at regular intervals. The recorded location data can be stored
within the tracking unit, or it may be transmitted to a central
location data base, or internet-connected computer, using a cellular
(GPRS), radio, or satellite modem embedded in the unit. This allows
the asset's location to be displayed against a map backdrop either in
real-time or when analysing the track later, using customized
software.

John Kulp writes:

Do you ever have one clue about what you're posting.

Yes, I always do.

A GPS tracking unit is a device that uses the Global Positioning
System to determine the precise location of a vehicle, person, or
other asset to which it is attached and to record the position of the
asset at regular intervals. The recorded location data can be stored
within the tracking unit, or it may be transmitted to a central
location data base, or internet-connected computer, using a cellular
(GPRS), radio, or satellite modem embedded in the unit. This allows
the asset's location to be displayed against a map backdrop either in
real-time or when analysing the track later, using customized
software.

That is a system that uses a GPS receiver as one of its components. GPS
itself does not provide tracking. The DoD deliberately designed it that way.

John Kulp writes:

By flying different paths than now.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

John Kulp writes:

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?

How do you change arrival and departure paths without moving runways? MLS is
a dead letter now and GPS isn't precise enough to provide ILS-equivalent
landing capability, so you're stuck with straight-in approaches, aligned with
runways.

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?

Possibly. Pilots know how to fly planes, but they don't have to know how
planes work. In the old days, before computers did most of the dirty work,
planes had flight engineers, who _did_ know how the planes worked. Today, a
computer handles most things. In both cases, the pilots didn't have to know,
and it would have been quite an extra burden on them to try to train them,
anyway. You don't have to know how a FMS works in order to use one.