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

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.

John Kulp writes:

I never said they were. As usual, no one understands whatever point
you are trying to make here.

Oh, I think a lot of people understand it. Don't assume that everyone has the
same difficulties that you (apparently) do.

Airbus writes:

Well, airports themselves don't fly, but concerning approach paths, how about
the fact that non-overlay GPS approaches use different paths from other
existing approaches. Does that make it more clear?

What's clear is that GPS cannot come close to matching the precision of ILS.
Augmentation systems essentially reproduce many of the disadvantages (and
advantages) of ILS.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

That's like saying a Ford F-150 pickup truck can't be used as a ski
boat because Ford deliberately designed it that way.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Airbus writes:

Well, airports themselves don't fly, but concerning approach paths, how about
the fact that non-overlay GPS approaches use different paths from other
existing approaches. Does that make it more clear?

What's clear is that GPS cannot come close to matching the precision of ILS.
Augmentation systems essentially reproduce many of the disadvantages (and
advantages) of ILS.

Such as?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:09:38 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

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.

That stupid. The whole system being built is a GPS tracking system to
space and direct flight paths. Your comments are completely erroneous
and stupid. Which, of course, won't stop you from babbling on. Just
watcj.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:12:25 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

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.

You're completely dense. You change the flight paths. They're in the
AIR not on the GROUND like the runways. Got that?


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.

Boy, are you a complete moron. The pilots don't know how the planes
work. They just sit there like robots staring out the window while
some ghost flies them. They use GPS overseas all the time but they
don't know how to use them. What idiocy.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:14:06 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

I never said they were. As usual, no one understands whatever point
you are trying to make here.

Oh, I think a lot of people understand it. Don't assume that everyone has the
same difficulties that you (apparently) do.

Your drivel is so senseless Alice in Wonderland wouldn't have a clue
what you're talking about.

"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.