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

(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.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 12:54:52 -0600, Newps wrote:



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.



Well, since you just wave your hands and say so, that must be right.
And, duh, it will be the GPS system that puts the aircraft where
they're supposed to be in the flow so how is that irrelevant genius?

John Kulp wrote:




Well, since you just wave your hands and say so, that must be right.
And, duh, it will be the GPS system that puts the aircraft where
they're supposed to be in the flow so how is that irrelevant genius?



GPS doesn't put the aircraft in the proper sequence and at the proper
spacing. I do, using a variety of techniques that any pilot who has
flown in controlled airspace can tell you about. GPS can help you
navigate to a particular location in space but does nothing to establish
and then maintain a desired spacing.

Newps writes:

[...] 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. [...]

Does that not just affect in-trail separation?

- FChE

Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Newps writes:


[...] 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. [...]


Does that not just affect in-trail separation?



Yes, but at the major airports the arrivals start approx 150 nm from the
airport. That's the latest aircraft start to get in trail. At the
busiest times the approach controls will slap a restriction onto the
centers for anywhere from 10-20 miles in trail for aircraft going into
the same airport that will start hundreds of miles from the destination.
Then as they get closer the aircraft streams will be joined together
to their minimum allowed separation.