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

http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airl...ing/index.html

"He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
that's been 10 years in the making.

"'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
saying no,' Castelveter said."

I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.

"She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from
1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based
technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces
noise for 600,000 people.'"

I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would reduce
delays.

I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better.

From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number of
runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are
where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays occur
(or at least that's their ultimate origin).

Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying 737s
and A320s and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a
day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air
traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar
routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more
resources.

I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is they
nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and
inefficient.

"The Air Transport Association's Castelveter also focused on corporate
aviation.

"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?

On Sep 12, 1:29 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airl...ing/index.html

"He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
that's been 10 years in the making.

"'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
saying no,' Castelveter said."

I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.

Not necessarily airport flight paths, but the general "corridors"
in which they fly. My understanding of this GPS based system
is that it planes will generate their own flight paths and to
a great degree "control" themselves. The result will be more
direct paths between airports. Paths which are not currently used
much or at all.


"She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from
1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based
technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces
noise for 600,000 people.'"

I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would reduce
delays.

The system being proposed is that each plane "broadcast" to other
planes their location, based upon GPS coordinates. Possibly also
their flight plans. It gets ATC "out of the loop" to a great degree
and merely puts them in more of a "monitoring" mode. I'm sure
each airport will still have a tower controlling take-offs and
landings.


I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better.

From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number of
runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are
where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays occur
(or at least that's their ultimate origin).

That's one, but not the only one.


Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying 737s
and A320s and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a
day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air
traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar
routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more
resources.

There is plenty of airport capacity out there. There are a few
that are
all jammed up, but plenty more that have little crowding at all.

I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is they
nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and
inefficient.

Their margins are low and they are trying to increase profits
through
volume.

"The Air Transport Association's Castelveter also focused on corporate
aviation.

"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?


I dunno. Probably depends upon how you think "traffic" should be
measured. Take-offs? Passengers? Miles? Hours? Not to
mention what is meant by "private".

me writes:

Not necessarily airport flight paths, but the general "corridors"
in which they fly. My understanding of this GPS based system
is that it planes will generate their own flight paths and to
a great degree "control" themselves. The result will be more
direct paths between airports. Paths which are not currently used
much or at all.

But the only residents exposed to noise from aircraft regularly are those
directly adjacent to airports. How would GPS navigation diminish this noise,
as the article implies?

The system being proposed is that each plane "broadcast" to other
planes their location, based upon GPS coordinates. Possibly also
their flight plans. It gets ATC "out of the loop" to a great degree
and merely puts them in more of a "monitoring" mode. I'm sure
each airport will still have a tower controlling take-offs and
landings.

Sounds like a terrorist's fondest dream. And each failure endangers aircraft
for miles around, and when there are lots of aircraft aloft, it's not
fail-safe, it's fail-for-sure.

There is plenty of airport capacity out there. There are a few
that are all jammed up, but plenty more that have little crowding at all.

Then apply quotas to commercial airline traffic, so that it is forced to
distribute the load over many different airports (or make fewer flights with
larger aircraft, which would be more efficient, anyway).

Their margins are low and they are trying to increase profits
through volume.

But they are not serving the public interest in doing so. Perhaps it's time
to re-regulate.

On Sep 12, 1:12 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
me writes:
Not necessarily airport flight paths, but the general "corridors"
in which they fly. My understanding of this GPS based system
is that it planes will generate their own flight paths and to
a great degree "control" themselves. The result will be more
direct paths between airports. Paths which are not currently used
much or at all.

But the only residents exposed to noise from aircraft regularly are those
directly adjacent to airports. How would GPS navigation diminish this noise,
as the article implies?

It barely implies it. It didn't say what the objects were at all.
And
since it listed "environmentalists" as one of the groups, it doesn't
have to be merely about noise.

The system being proposed is that each plane "broadcast" to other
planes their location, based upon GPS coordinates. Possibly also
their flight plans. It gets ATC "out of the loop" to a great degree
and merely puts them in more of a "monitoring" mode. I'm sure
each airport will still have a tower controlling take-offs and
landings.

Sounds like a terrorist's fondest dream. And each failure endangers aircraft
for miles around, and when there are lots of aircraft aloft, it's not
fail-safe, it's fail-for-sure.

Well, you presume that ATC doesn't exist at all. It merely
changes the role of ATC and the pilots as well. Pilots gain control
and the ATC reliqueshes it to some degree. The airforce already
has a fair amount of autonomy in the skies (when it wishes).
It merely requires certain systems and failure procedures. Really,
in general, it will be better merely because more information is
available to more people, all of whom have an interest in not
crashing.

There is plenty of airport capacity out there. There are a few
that are all jammed up, but plenty more that have little crowding at all.

Then apply quotas to commercial airline traffic, so that it is forced to
distribute the load over many different airports (or make fewer flights with
larger aircraft, which would be more efficient, anyway).

You're talking about rationing and it already exists to some
extent.

Their margins are low and they are trying to increase profits
through volume.

But they are not serving the public interest in doing so. Perhaps it's time
to re-regulate.

Some have advocated that. Most folks don't agree that's the
solution. Virtually everyone involved in the system agree that the
primary problem is ATC's in ability to manage the available
resource.

me writes:

Some have advocated that. Most folks don't agree that's the
solution. Virtually everyone involved in the system agree that the
primary problem is ATC's in ability to manage the available
resource.

Hire more controllers.

On Sep 13, 12:57 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
me writes:
Some have advocated that. Most folks don't agree that's the
solution. Virtually everyone involved in the system agree that the
primary problem is ATC's in ability to manage the available
resource.

Hire more controllers.

And concentrate them where they are needed.

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:57:42 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

me writes:

Some have advocated that. Most folks don't agree that's the
solution. Virtually everyone involved in the system agree that the
primary problem is ATC's in ability to manage the available
resource.

Hire more controllers.


Right. Hire more controllers to man a system already at capacity.
That would do a lot alright.

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:29:44 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

http://us.cnn.com/2007/US/09/11/airl...ing/index.html

"He blamed resistance from environmentalists for the government's
failure to move more quickly toward a satellite-based technology
that's been 10 years in the making.

"'Residents that have homes that would be in that flight path are
saying no,' Castelveter said."

I'm not sure how using GPS would change airport flight paths.

They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
GPS allows closer flying.


"She called for airlines and the government to make the transition from
1960s radar-based air traffic control systems to satellite-based
technology, 'a solution that will cut delays by 20 percent and reduces
noise for 600,000 people.'"

I don't see how GPS replaces radar coverage, nor do I see how it would reduce
delays.

That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.


I guess those magic satellites are somehow going to make it all better.

From what I understand of the reality, the real bottleneck is the number of
runways and the number of planes that want to use them. The airports are
where all the planes meet, and so that's where the conflicts and delays occur
(or at least that's their ultimate origin).

Part of the problem but certainly not all. And seasonal as well,
being worse in summer and less in the off months.


Airlines also seem to be scheduling too many flights. Everyone is buying 737s
and A320s and running tiny flights every hour instead of 747 flights twice a
day, wasting fuel and polluting the environment and overcrowding the air
traffic system. Not only that, but with so many operators flying similar
routes, there are even more small jets going to and fro, wasting more
resources.

Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
you want to do? Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be
less competitive and go up?


I'm surprised that with airlines wailing about how difficult business is they
nevertheless resort to practices that are so manifestly wasteful and
inefficient.

They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
heights.


"The Air Transport Association's Castelveter also focused on corporate
aviation.

"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.

John Kulp writes:

They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
GPS allows closer flying.

How does this diminish noise to residents adjacent to airports (the only ones
affected by noise)?

That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.

GPS does not track aircraft; radar does.

Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
you want to do?

Fly larger aircraft less often to the major airports, reducing fuel
consumption, pollution, stress on the environment, and noise.

Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive
and go up?

Regulate the nature and amount of commercial airline traffic, which is almost
the same thing.

They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
heights.

Flying multiple flights with smaller aircraft is much less efficient than
flying once with a larger aircraft.

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

John Kulp writes:

They're two different things, both of which can improve delays. The
changed flight paths allow for more efficient TOs and landings, while
GPS allows closer flying.

How does this diminish noise to residents adjacent to airports (the only ones
affected by noise)?

By flying different paths than now.


That's exactly what it does. GPS is much more precise than radar
allowing closer spacing and straighter flight paths.

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?


Uuh, it's better service. You can hardly fly large planes to small
regional airports which is what the smaller planes service. What do
you want to do?

Fly larger aircraft less often to the major airports, reducing fuel
consumption, pollution, stress on the environment, and noise.

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.


Restrict the number of operators so the fares will be less competitive
and go up?

Regulate the nature and amount of commercial airline traffic, which is almost
the same thing.

Sure. Regulation does wonder. Deregulation did nothing for the
industry. Brilliant once again.


They don't. It's just the opposite and seat loads are at historical
heights.

Flying multiple flights with smaller aircraft is much less efficient than
flying once with a larger aircraft.

You can babble this all you want. It hardly makes it true. And it's
not.