A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Instrument Flight Rules
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

AOPA and ATC Privatization



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #131  
Old September 9th 03, 02:30 AM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Actually those companies make up perhaps 25% of the market. Semicondutor
market will be about $170B this year. Also note that MOT's semiconductor
business doesn't make money very often.

Mike
MU-2

Yup...I was thinking of CPU's and the like. 'Scuze me.


  #132  
Old September 9th 03, 02:58 PM
journeyman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 16:00:25 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

More seriously: that's not quite what I meant. I'm thinking of a "bubble"
of a certain size that must be kept clear. I'm sure there's an official
term, but I don't know it.

I'd imagine that this "bubble" needs to be larger around a fast-mover than a
slow-mover. In other words, a sky of 172s could be permitted to be more
densely packed than a sky of 747s.

At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct.


Not. The "bubble" is the same size (5 miles for ARTCC?). This means
that a sky full of 747s can be packed as densely as a sky full of 172s.
What really messes up the works is a mixed sky of fast-movers and
slow-movers.


Morris (slow mover)
  #133  
Old September 9th 03, 04:50 PM
Tom S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"journeyman" wrote in message
u.com...
What really messes up the works is a mixed sky of fast-movers and
slow-movers.


Kinda like the freeway at rush hour.


  #134  
Old September 9th 03, 08:27 PM
Everett M. Greene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Tarver Engineering" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote in message

[snip]
Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is.


I made it possible for Mead to go where he is. Anytime a civil servant is
removed from an issue, they require an advocate to bring them back. It
helped that my Congressman was Chair of Government Oversight and Reform back
then, he is now Chair of Ways and Means. The reform of FAA has been a very
effective Republican political issue, not to mention the lives that have
been saved.


You mean you got him to do something for one of his constituents?
I thought he last represented his district 20 years ago when he
understood that DoD operations impact a large portion of the
people of his district. He's now so busy wheeling and dealing
inside the Beltway that I'm not certain he could find his
district on a map.
  #135  
Old September 9th 03, 09:07 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

journeyman wrote:

At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct.


Not. The "bubble" is the same size (5 miles for ARTCC?).


Interesting, and somewhat surprising to me. If you view separation as a
function of time (ie. targets are separated based upon how much time it
would take for them to reach one another), this model appears to offer the
fast-movers less of a cushion.

Ah, well. It'll certainly not be the last thing that surprises me.

- Andrew

  #136  
Old September 9th 03, 10:05 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Andrew Gideon wrote:
journeyman wrote:

At least, that's my assumption. I've no idea whether or not it's correct.


Not. The "bubble" is the same size (5 miles for ARTCC?).


Interesting, and somewhat surprising to me. If you view separation as a
function of time (ie. targets are separated based upon how much time it
would take for them to reach one another), this model appears to offer the
fast-movers less of a cushion.


No, it's not an issue of time to act so much as it is the certainty of the location of
the aircraft. It's the controller's job to take into account the relative speeds of the
aircraft and to act so that the 5 mile bubbles don't burst. He has to look further
ahead of faster movers.


  #137  
Old September 9th 03, 10:56 PM
Andrew Gideon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron Natalie wrote:


No, it's not an issue of time to act so much as it is the certainty of the
location of
the aircraft.


I'd think both were factors. That is, a fast-mover can move further from
it's last known point between RADAR queries, and a fast-mover can move
further between the time it takes to notice a problem and correct it.

It's the controller's job to take into account the
relative speeds of the
aircraft and to act so that the 5 mile bubbles don't burst. He has to
look further ahead of faster movers.


Ah...so there's a second bubble. One is the legal "requirement", and the
other is what is used for planning into the future.

That makes sense to me.

However (and this is where the thread diverged onto this subtopic), doesn't
that "look further ahead" warrant an increased ATC service fee grin?

- Andrew

  #138  
Old September 10th 03, 03:22 AM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" writes:
"Chip Jones" wrote in message

[snip]
Ah, now it all becomes clear. YOU put Mead where he is.


I made it possible for Mead to go where he is. Anytime a civil servant

is
removed from an issue, they require an advocate to bring them back. It
helped that my Congressman was Chair of Government Oversight and Reform

back
then, he is now Chair of Ways and Means. The reform of FAA has been a

very
effective Republican political issue, not to mention the lives that have
been saved.


You mean you got him to do something for one of his constituents?


Yes. Several years ago we had a box installed IAW AC143.13, instead of our
installation manual. The report back was, "cockpit filled with smoke" and
so Iwent down to the ACO to get athority to write the installs myself. I
discovered that Douglas didn't want professional engineers and I couldn't
play. FAA thought I was very funny when I expected them to fix their
problem.

I thought he last represented his district 20 years ago when he
understood that DoD operations impact a large portion of the
people of his district. He's now so busy wheeling and dealing
inside the Beltway that I'm not certain he could find his
district on a map.


Thomas still comes here and meets the Republicans.


  #139  
Old September 19th 03, 03:53 AM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Well it is and it is not, one needs to know a little about govenment
to understand the system. Just like commercial fuel taxes at the gas
station pays for the interstate highway system, the fuel tax and other
fees pay for the airway jetroute system. Each system of
transportation is mostly self supporting.

It is also very interesting how much each system ties into the other.
Ever wonder why a VFR C150 can fly into ORD on the busiest day and why
at such a busy commerical place they dont try and restrict slow
private aircraft. Once they do, then Grayhound Bus could demand the
same thing over the George Washington Bridge into NYC. And we all
know the little guy driving the VW Bug has the same right to the road
as the driver of the Greyhound bus.











"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message nk.net...
"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...

My understanding:
The system as it is currently financed is from fuel and gate (ticket)
taxes. The system is not only self supporting, but actually
accumulates money. Unfortunately the way the system is set up the FAA
has to justify the money they spend as if it comes from the general
fund. Only those who fly and use aviation fuel are paying in to the
system, not he general taxpayer.

It is one of the few government agencies that has been self
supporting, even if it does have some problems. Many of which are due
to the way congress lets them have their own money.


My understanding is that Air Traffic is about 85% funded by the trust fund,
at least it was several years ago. It shouldn't be funded exclusively from
aviation taxes because Air Traffic also provides services to the military.

  #140  
Old November 12th 03, 09:26 PM
Steven P. McNicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John" wrote in message
om...

Ever wonder why a VFR C150 can fly into ORD on the busiest day and why
at such a busy commerical place they dont try and restrict slow
private aircraft.


A VFR C150 can't fly into ORD on the busiest day and private aircraft of all
speeds are restricted at such busy airports. ORD is in Class B airspace and
on the busiest day a VFR aircraft seeking entry will be told to remain clear
of the Class B airspace. ORD is a high density traffic airport under FAR
Part 93, it is limited to just ten IFR operations per hour by general
aviation aircraft.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.