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

John Kulp wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:16:07 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.


Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
can't track aircraft. I have news for you. I was on an international
flight a while back and was talking to the relief pilot. He said the
US was the only country NOT using GPS and was totally outdated. So
how, then, do the flights get to where they're going?



GPS was used to guide the bombs to pre-determined fixed locations, which
is a bit different than how it would work with aircraft.

To use GPS for tracking an aircraft, the GPS device would be on the
aircraft being tracked and it would have to broadcast this location
information to the trackers.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:36:47 -0700, mrtravel wrote:

John Kulp wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:16:07 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.


Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
can't track aircraft. I have news for you. I was on an international
flight a while back and was talking to the relief pilot. He said the
US was the only country NOT using GPS and was totally outdated. So
how, then, do the flights get to where they're going?



GPS was used to guide the bombs to pre-determined fixed locations, which
is a bit different than how it would work with aircraft.

To use GPS for tracking an aircraft, the GPS device would be on the
aircraft being tracked and it would have to broadcast this location
information to the trackers.

True, but GPS is GPS. They all use the same satellites.

John Kulp writes:

By flying different paths than now.

Without moving runways, that's going to be difficult.

Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
can't track aircraft.

GPS is a receiver-only system. It provides guidance to the aircraft in which
it is installed. It provides nothing to anyone else, by design.

I have news for you. I was on an international
flight a while back and was talking to the relief pilot. He said the
US was the only country NOT using GPS and was totally outdated. So
how, then, do the flights get to where they're going?

What your pilot doesn't know is that the FMS in every aircraft (almost) uses
GPS as one of its navigation sources. The FMS uses GPS, VORs, ILS, ADF, and
potentially whatever else is on the aircraft for navigation. So the U.S. is
making heavy use of GPS.

Still, this has nothing to do with _tracking_ aircraft by GPS, which is not
possible.

Ah, so you reduce shedules making them less convenient for the public,
force aircraft to buy and sell aircraft they don't want, etc. etc.
Brilliant.

As fuel dwindles and CO2 increases, it will certainly seem so, although I
rather consider it self-evident.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:01:16 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

By flying different paths than now.

Without moving runways, that's going to be difficult.

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?


Funny, GPS can place a smart bomb right on a target it tracks, but it
can't track aircraft.

GPS is a receiver-only system. It provides guidance to the aircraft in which
it is installed. It provides nothing to anyone else, by design.

More complete nonsense. Go read the other post which actually tells
you what it does.


I have news for you. I was on an international
flight a while back and was talking to the relief pilot. He said the
US was the only country NOT using GPS and was totally outdated. So
how, then, do the flights get to where they're going?

What your pilot doesn't know is that the FMS in every aircraft (almost) uses
GPS as one of its navigation sources. The FMS uses GPS, VORs, ILS, ADF, and
potentially whatever else is on the aircraft for navigation. So the U.S. is
making heavy use of GPS.

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?
Right. It's apparent from virtually all your posts that you have no
clue what you're talking about.


Still, this has nothing to do with _tracking_ aircraft by GPS, which is not
possible.

Completely stupid comment as usual.


Ah, so you reduce shedules making them less convenient for the public,
force aircraft to buy and sell aircraft they don't want, etc. etc.
Brilliant.

As fuel dwindles and CO2 increases, it will certainly seem so, although I
rather consider it self-evident.

Self-evident to a complete idiot. Fuel isn't dwindling. There is
plenty of it. CO2 footprints of aircraft ARE dwindling with more fuel
efficient engines, wing tips, etc.etc. See 787.

(John Kulp) wrote:

"The guys who fly around in private jets" make up about 40 percent of
the air traffic in the Northeast, he said. "One would think it's not just
airlines that would be asked to reduce capacity," he said.

Is this number correct?

Yes, and they don't pay anywhere near their fair share of fees either.

Well that's certainly a matter for debate...

The vast majority of gen av traffic would operate just fine without ATC at all.
With the exception of a few airports that are commercial hubs, and a couple like
Teterboro that attract a bunch of CEO flights.

What drives all those ATC costs are commercial aircraft that a) all want to land
at the same time, and b) have cockpit equipment that was designed 40 years ago,
thus they have to have ATC around.

Most GA aircraft have modern cockpits fully capable of detecting traffic
conflicts, rerouting for weather and operate out of airports that are lucky to
see more than a couple of dozen flights a day.

This is really an argument over who created the problem and who gets to pay to
solve it. GA didn't create the problem and shouldn't be force to bail the
airlines or the government out.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote:

"The guys who fly around in private jets" make up about 40 percent of
the air traffic in the Northeast, he said. "One would think it's not just
airlines that would be asked to reduce capacity," he said.

Is this number correct?

Yes, and they don't pay anywhere near their fair share of fees either.

Well that's certainly a matter for debate...

The vast majority of gen av traffic would operate just fine without ATC at all.
With the exception of a few airports that are commercial hubs, and a couple like
Teterboro that attract a bunch of CEO flights.


Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control,
or departure control.

(John Kulp) wrote in
:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote:

"The guys who fly around in private jets" make up about 40 percent
of the air traffic in the Northeast, he said. "One would think
it's not just airlines that would be asked to reduce capacity," he
said.

Is this number correct?

Yes, and they don't pay anywhere near their fair share of fees
either.

Well that's certainly a matter for debate...

The vast majority of gen av traffic would operate just fine without
ATC at all. With the exception of a few airports that are commercial
hubs, and a couple like Teterboro that attract a bunch of CEO flights.


Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control,
or departure control.


Have heard of them and even use them at times. Unless you are IFR,
they are NOT needed at a vast majority of airports in the United States.
Most airports in the U.S. do not have a control tower, and many of those
who do do not have a 24 hour control tower. No local or ground
controllers. No ground control.

Even IFR, unless you are in the area of major airports, you may very
well not have TRACON, ground, or local control. You take off with a
clearance void time obtained from an RCO or relayed by FSS and once at
sufficient altitude talk directly to the ARTCC for your location.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:30:32 GMT, Marty Shapiro
wrote:



Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control,
or departure control.


Have heard of them and even use them at times. Unless you are IFR,
they are NOT needed at a vast majority of airports in the United States.
Most airports in the U.S. do not have a control tower, and many of those
who do do not have a 24 hour control tower. No local or ground
controllers. No ground control.

These aren't the airports that have much traffic or are the problem.
Those are major airports, which do have ATC.


Even IFR, unless you are in the area of major airports, you may very
well not have TRACON, ground, or local control. You take off with a
clearance void time obtained from an RCO or relayed by FSS and once at
sufficient altitude talk directly to the ARTCC for your location.

Perhaps. It's been a loooong time since I was piloting aircraft. But
then, what are the fees being talked about for exactly? Why, exactly,
are the majors talking about their customers paying almost all the
freight then?

John Kulp wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:23:10 -0600, Rick Blaine
wrote:

(John Kulp) wrote:

"The guys who fly around in private jets" make up about 40
percent of the air traffic in the Northeast, he said. "One would
think it's not just airlines that would be asked to reduce
capacity," he said.

Is this number correct?

Yes, and they don't pay anywhere near their fair share of fees
either.

Well that's certainly a matter for debate...

The vast majority of gen av traffic would operate just fine without
ATC at all. With the exception of a few airports that are commercial
hubs, and a couple like Teterboro that attract a bunch of CEO
flights.


Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control,
or departure control.

Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Apparently, you have never heard of approach control, ground control,
or departure control.

Apparently, you have not heard of uncontrolled.

Exactly.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars