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

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:30:59 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

Right. Hire more controllers to man a system already at capacity. That
would do a lot alright.

This issue is "where's the bottleneck". If it really is in control over
airspace, hiring more controllers is probably not a bad idea.

However, we all know that that's not the most critical issue at all
despite the claims of some otherwise. The real issue - runway count
combined with the hub/spoke model - gets no benefit from additional
controllers.

I do have one odd data point, however. I sat on the ramp in a small
airliner at EWR recently, waiting for weather to improve between EWR and
my destination in Ohio (I forget which airport). I was watching the
weather from my "phone". If I'd an airliner's speed and range, I'd have
taken off in a different direction (to the north would have been my
choice). Make a left around Albany, and the entire route would have been
weather-clear.

[Even w/o the range, I could have added a stop en route for fuel.]

Instead of that, though, we waited until the cells (which were over an
hour away when the wait started) passed EWR eastbound. Then we departed.

Why? Why didn't we take the path I saw? *That* makes me wonder about
airspace control issues, but I'm just guessing that that might have been
the cause. It could have been a myriad of other issues as well.

- Andrew

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:52:50 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:30:59 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

Right. Hire more controllers to man a system already at capacity. That
would do a lot alright.

This issue is "where's the bottleneck". If it really is in control over
airspace, hiring more controllers is probably not a bad idea.

However, we all know that that's not the most critical issue at all
despite the claims of some otherwise. The real issue - runway count
combined with the hub/spoke model - gets no benefit from additional
controllers.

I do have one odd data point, however. I sat on the ramp in a small
airliner at EWR recently, waiting for weather to improve between EWR and
my destination in Ohio (I forget which airport). I was watching the
weather from my "phone". If I'd an airliner's speed and range, I'd have
taken off in a different direction (to the north would have been my
choice). Make a left around Albany, and the entire route would have been
weather-clear.

[Even w/o the range, I could have added a stop en route for fuel.]

Instead of that, though, we waited until the cells (which were over an
hour away when the wait started) passed EWR eastbound. Then we departed.

Why? Why didn't we take the path I saw? *That* makes me wonder about
airspace control issues, but I'm just guessing that that might have been
the cause. It could have been a myriad of other issues as well.

You ignoring all the other traffic that the airport was handling at
the same time which most likely made your flight do what it did. You
can't just do as you did and assume that space is available for your
aircraft. That's why they have controllers in the first place.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:30:58 +0000, John Kulp wrote:

Why? Why didn't we take the path I saw? *That* makes me wonder about
airspace control issues, but I'm just guessing that that might have been
the cause. It could have been a myriad of other issues as well.

You ignoring all the other traffic that the airport was handling at the
same time which most likely made your flight do what it did. You can't
just do as you did and assume that space is available for your aircraft.

Why not? There is a lot of sky, even in only one direction. A single
airway at a single altitude can accommodate three new aircraft every
minute at 200 Kts. Admittedly, this is a gross simplification of time
and separation, but it's also only a single airway at a single altitude.

The airport itself was launching some traffic, but not much. And, at
least at the start of this wait (while the weather was pretty far away),
local weather wasn't an issue. This did change later, however.

What other limit(s) might be at issue? That's what I wonder.

- Andrew

On Sep 19, 9:35 am, Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:30:58 +0000, John Kulp wrote:
Why? Why didn't we take the path I saw? *That* makes me wonder about
airspace control issues, but I'm just guessing that that might have been
the cause. It could have been a myriad of other issues as well.

You ignoring all the other traffic that the airport was handling at the
same time which most likely made your flight do what it did. You can't
just do as you did and assume that space is available for your aircraft.

Why not? There is a lot of sky, even in only one direction. A single
airway at a single altitude can accommodate three new aircraft every
minute at 200 Kts. Admittedly, this is a gross simplification of time
and separation, but it's also only a single airway at a single altitude.

The airport itself was launching some traffic, but not much. And, at
least at the start of this wait (while the weather was pretty far away),
local weather wasn't an issue. This did change later, however.

What other limit(s) might be at issue? That's what I wonder.

First of all your pilots would have had to request it. They would
have had to file the appropriate flight plans (which admittedly
they can probably amend via the radio as they sat). But
furthermore, they would have to figure out the relative fuel
burn for your alternate itinerary and the one they originally
intended. Large route changes cause excess fuel use.
They can sit and idle on the taxiway a long time before
they burn up that kind of fuel.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote

Why? Why didn't we take the path I saw? *That* makes me wonder about
airspace control issues, but I'm just guessing that that might have been
the cause. It could have been a myriad of other issues as well.

As I understand it, this is one type of issue that could be greatly improved
when true "free fly" routing is in place. Take off in any direction that
will meet the needs, and not worry about the airways.

Makes sense to me, on paper, at least! g
--
Jim in NC

Morgans writes:

As I understand it, this is one type of issue that could be greatly improved
when true "free fly" routing is in place. Take off in any direction that
will meet the needs, and not worry about the airways.

It depends on how much of the congestion is en-route, and how much is in
approach and departure. Free flight would help in the former case, but it
wouldn't make much different in the latter case.

Additionally, although truly random free flight would eliminate en-route
congestion, it would also raise costs, since most random, free-flight routes
are going to be longer than the optimal route. There would be a tendency for
everyone to try to fly the shortest route, and then the congestion would
return.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Morgans writes:

As I understand it, this is one type of issue that could be greatly improved
when true "free fly" routing is in place. Take off in any direction that
will meet the needs, and not worry about the airways.

It depends on how much of the congestion is en-route, and how much is in
approach and departure. Free flight would help in the former case, but it
wouldn't make much different in the latter case.

Additionally, although truly random free flight would eliminate en-route
congestion, it would also raise costs, since most random, free-flight routes
are going to be longer than the optimal route. There would be a tendency for
everyone to try to fly the shortest route, and then the congestion would
return.

Babbling nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.