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

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

John Kulp wrote:

GPS was designed and built by the military.


So what?

You said GPS was designed to reduce airline delays. It wasn't designed
for anything of the sort. Nor can it do that.





You can't change basic physics. GPS can

generate some minor efficiencies in getting aircraft to the start of the
arrival which is 150 nm from the airport. Then everybody gets lined up
and fed to the airport. GPS is of little value from that point on in
reducing spacing. How are you going to overcome the basic fact that
2.5-3 miles is the minimum useable spacing, assuming no departures?


Uh, when someone else pointed out that it is currently 5-6miles you
don't call that increased efficiency? Where did you study math?

That additional distance is for wake turbulence and has been pointed out
to you before. Where's the benefit of GPS?

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:49:48 -0600, Newps wrote:



John Kulp wrote:

GPS was designed and built by the military.


So what?

You said GPS was designed to reduce airline delays. It wasn't designed
for anything of the sort. Nor can it do that.

I never said anything of the sort. GPS was designed for military
purposes and is being applied to ATC. That's what I said, along with
saying that the FAA and the airlines think that it MAY reduce delays
by up to 25%. Or put up your proof, if you have any, that it cannot
and won't.






You can't change basic physics. GPS can

generate some minor efficiencies in getting aircraft to the start of the
arrival which is 150 nm from the airport. Then everybody gets lined up
and fed to the airport. GPS is of little value from that point on in
reducing spacing. How are you going to overcome the basic fact that
2.5-3 miles is the minimum useable spacing, assuming no departures?


Uh, when someone else pointed out that it is currently 5-6miles you
don't call that increased efficiency? Where did you study math?

That additional distance is for wake turbulence and has been pointed out
to you before. Where's the benefit of GPS?

Uhh, if the minimum spacing now is 5-6 miles and it can be reduced to
2.5 miles that increases capacity and reduces delays.

John Kulp wrote:

Uh, when someone else pointed out that it is currently 5-6miles you
don't call that increased efficiency? Where did you study math?

That additional distance is for wake turbulence and has been pointed out
to you before. Where's the benefit of GPS?


Uhh, if the minimum spacing now is 5-6 miles and it can be reduced to
2.5 miles that increases capacity and reduces delays.


You need to review minimum separation standards so you don't sound so
stupid. Do that and get back to us. You can find them here.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...a/7110.65R.pdf

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:04:04 -0600, Newps wrote:



John Kulp wrote:

What makes you think that GPS could decrease the needed separation?


Because that is exactly what it is designed to do?

Ah, no. GPS was not designed for that nor can it provide that. Most in
trail separation today is based on wake turbulence. Even if you got rid
of wake turbulence you still can't get less than 2.5-3 miles for jets
because that's how long it takes to land, slow down and exit the runway.
If it's dry. And that spacing doesn't allow departures to get out
between the arrivals. So you go to five miles and if everything works
out perfect that's barely enough room to get the jet departures out.
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.

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?

Airlines LIE. Pure and simple. Airlines LIE.

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.

Airlines LIE.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

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.

(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:



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.

And that is completely wrong. Once the spacing has been established GPS
is irrelevant in maintaining it. The minimum spacing can not be reduced
from what it is now unless aircraft can be designed to be unaffected by
wake turbulence. And if that happens GPS will still be irrelevant.

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.