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

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

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."

That's what is being said about the system. Like I asked, where did I
say anything that defies the laws of physics? Not here for sure.


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. 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, or putting more flights in general in the
space in those non-rush hours times, capacity might be significantly
increased. How does anyone know how many of these types of flights
are running into rush hour times because they are delayed due to
controllable factors like this? I have had this happen to myself
several times.


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.

Scheduling, I think, might well improve because it could be more
precisely managed with GPS as I point out above. Simply focusing on
rush hour times misses the forest for all the trees.

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